Pope fails to address 'intelligent design' theory of evolution

thisislondon.co.uk ^ | 04 September 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

Pope Benedict and his former doctoral students spent a weekend pondering evolution without discussing controversies over intelligent design and creationism raging in the United States.

The three-day closed-door meeting at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome ended as planned without drawing any conclusions but the group plans to publish its discussion papers, said participant Father Joseph Fessio S.J.

Media speculation had said the debate might shift Vatican policy to embrace "intelligent design," which claims to prove scientifically that life could not have simply evolved, or even the "creationist" view that God created the world in six days.

"It wasn't that at all," Fessio, who is provost of Ave Maria University in Florida, said from Rome. The Pope's session with 39 former students was "a meeting of friends with some scholars to discuss an interesting theme".

"We did not really speak much about intelligent design," said Fessio, whose Ignatius Press publishes the Pope's books in English. "In fact, that particular controversy did not arise."

Creationism -- the view that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- was "almost off the radar screen of the people in this group," he added. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally.

Fessio said Benedict took part in the discussions but said nothing different from previous public statements, in which he has recognised evolution as a scientific fact but argued that God ultimately created the world and all life in it.

As the Pope put it at his inaugural Mass after being elected in April 2005, "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God."

Annual get-togethers

Benedict, who taught theology at four German universities before becoming archbishop of Munich and then the Vatican's top doctrinal official, has held these annual get-togethers since the late 1970s. The international group debates in German.

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has long been rejected in the United States by conservative Christians who want to have a Bible-based view of creation taught in public schools, where the church-state separation bars the teaching of religion.

More recently, Darwin's critics have campaigned to have "intelligent design" taught as a scientific alternative to evolution. President George W. Bush and other conservative politicians support this drive to "teach the controversy".

The "ID movement" does not name the designer as God, but its opponents say that is the logical conclusion and call this an unacceptable bid to sneak religion into the teaching of science.

Schools in some parts of the United States teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution but a Pennsylvania court banned it there last year, saying it was religion in disguise.

Catholic teaching accepts evolution as a scientific theory but disagrees with what it calls "evolutionism," the view that the story of life has no role for God as its prime author.

Vienna's Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a close associate of the Pope, was one of four speakers who addressed the meeting. He raised eyebrows last year with a New York Times article that suggested the Catholic Church supported the "ID movement".

Schoenborn and Benedict have said several times over the past year that intelligence in the form of God's will played a part in creation and that neo-Darwinists who deny God any role are drawing an ideological conclusion not proven by the theory.

They say they use philosophical reasoning to conclude that God created the world, not arguments which intelligent design supporters claim can be proven scientifically.

[Elsie]

There is a difference between aiming for perfection, which is something for which every Christian should strive, and achieving perfection, which every Christian should understand is impossible in this life.

 

And...

...never entertaining notions of his own perfection...

 

as well!

[StJacques]

Galileo was not tried for contradicting an "endorsed" scientific theory. He was tried for contradicting scripture.

The Catholic Church has never endorsed any scientific theory.

[StJacques]

"And...

...never entertaining notions of his own perfection...

as well!"

Agreed.

[andysandmikesmom]

Again, St Jacques, reading your posts is a delight..you have much to say, and say it quite eloquently..

[etlib]

Exactly-- who are we finite beings to tell the infinite and timeless God that creating the world quickly is better than taking hundreds of millions of years?

Or billions of years, or for that matter 6 days, or even instantaneously. This discussion brought to mind a section of the book Fads and Fallacies (also published with the title In the Name of Science by Martin Gardner. In a chapter on "Geology versus Genesis" Mr. Gardner mentions a nineteenth century book by Philip Grosse. He points out that it "presents a theory so logically perfect and so in accord with geological facts that no amount of scientific evidence will be able to refute it." The book's title Omphalos means "navel" in Greek and the theory is that "just as Adam was likely created with a navel, the relic of a birth which never occurred, so the entire earth was created with all the fossil relics of a past which had no existence."

[VictoryGal]

There is a difference between aiming for perfection, which is something for which every Christian should strive, and achieving perfection, which every Christian should understand is impossible in this life.

And...

...never entertaining notions of his own perfection...

as well!

Uh, actually you can always aim for perfection while never entertaining notions of your own perfection. In fact, entertaining notions of your own perfection is a SIN.

Looks like you need to re-read your bible a little more... say: Ephesians 2:8-9. Happy to help!

[donh]

Galileo was not tried for contradicting an "endorsed" scientific theory. He was tried for contradicting scripture.

The Catholic Church has never endorsed any scientific theory.

As I suggested, I think this is a matter of viewpoint. If you are willing to put someone in jail because his scientific theory contradicts yours, you can certainly claim your's isn't a scientific theory you've "endorsed", but it sure looks like a scientific theory you've "endorsed" to the casual observer.

[G Larry]

Author in search of agenda!!!!!!

The Pope also failed to address;
- the U.S. National debt,
- Bird Flu,
- Sugar cane rust,
- Steve Irwin's death...(not important that it hadn't happened yet...)

[Elsie]

Depends on what a NOTION is...
-- Slick Willy

[Elsie]

MY death hasn't happened yet, but the Pope has addressed it!

[StJacques]

"As I suggested, I think this is a matter of viewpoint. If you are willing to put someone in jail because his scientific theory contradicts yours, you can certainly claim your's isn't a scientific theory you've "endorsed", but it sure looks like a scientific theory you've "endorsed" to the casual observer."

Well my viewpoint is that the charge against Galileo was heresy, which is a religious offense, not a scientific one.

This was the pronouncement of sentence:

". . . We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture. . . "

Maybe you read that differently than I do, but it is pretty clear to me that "contrary to the Holy Scripture" makes evident that the Catholic Church considered Galileo's crime a religious one.

[donh]

Yea, well, I could call my theory a "rumpelstiltskin" if I wanted to, but, no matter how insistent I am that my theory is really, really a "rumplestiltskin", if it an alternative to a fairly well-known and important scientific theory about the universe, than, at the risk of stating the obvious, it's an alternative theory about the nature of the universe--which is pretty much what a scientific theory is, last time I checked.

[StJacques]

"if it an alternative to a fairly well-known and important scientific theory about the universe, than, at the risk of stating the obvious, it's an alternative theory about the nature of the universe--which is pretty much what a scientific theory is, last time I checked."

Check again. A scientific theory must be based on observed phenomena and potentially disprovable. Galileo was challenging a metaphysical theory. Other metaphysical theories, like the Theory of Intelligent Design, are also oftentimes confused with science.

[donh]

Check again. A scientific theory must be based on observed phenomena and potentially disprovable. Galileo was challenging a metaphysical theory. Other metaphysical theories, like the Theory of Intelligent Design, are also oftentimes confused with science.

You mean, like, string theory, or SETI?

Galileo was challenging a metaphysical theory. Other metaphysical theories,

Uh huh, nobody at the heresy trial of Galileo ever spent an evening on the beach saying to themselves, "see, the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west, clearly, any fool can see that the sun goes round the earth."

Regardless of whether the Pope owned a telescope or not (and, as a matter of fact, he did) The church had a physical theory about the behaviors of two bodies, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue insisting that this can't be called a scientific theory. A label does not determine the nature of a thing. The nature of a thing determines whether a label is accurate or not. If it smells like a theory about how the physical world behaves, and looks like a theory about how the physical world, and you are willing to throw people in jail for contradicting you, than it is a theory about how the physical world behaves--which is close enough to being science for government work--and you, in fact, endorsed it.

like the Theory of Intelligent Design, are also oftentimes confused with science.

ID can satisfy most reasonable criteria for being a science. It just isn't a very good science, is all.

[StJacques]

". . . The church had a physical theory about the behaviors of two bodies, even if you hold your breath until you turn blue insisting that this can't be called a scientific theory. A label does not determine the nature of a thing. The nature of a thing determines whether a label is accurate or not. If it smells like a theory about how the physical world behaves, and looks like a theory about how the physical world, and you are willing to throw people in jail for contradicting you, than it is a theory about how the physical world behaves--which is close enough to being science for government work--and you, in fact, endorsed it."

The Catholic Church did have a theory about how the physical world worked. It was not rooted in science. It was rooted in Holy Scripture and, in the Catholic Church's eyes, was only supported by the Ptolemaic world-view that placed the earth at the center of the universe. At no time during Galileo's trial did the inquisitors hold up scripture as validating Ptolemy's work. No; it was the other way around, Ptolemy validated scripture, which was primary.

If you want to refer to the theory of the behavior of physical bodies the Church supported as being rooted in the physical observation of the universe placed above the authority of scripture, which would have made the theory the product of "empirical reasoning" (knowledge derived from the inductive method of observing phenomena), then I will argue with you because the Catholic Church clearly placed the authority of scripture above that of empirical observation. The primacy of empirical observation and inductive reasoning is what defines the nature of science as we know it today and the epistomelogical question that was confronted in Galileo's trial went to the very heart of what should be considered "scientific." And it was in the ensuing decades following Galileo's trial that question was settled in a form which is still recognizable to us to this day. Within fifteen years of the conclusion of Galileo's trial a well-formed debate within rationalist philosophy had developed between the Materialists, of whom Thomas Hobbes became their primary spokesman, and the Rationalists, who looked to René Descartes. As far as the question of what should truly be considered "science" went, the argument was settled by Isaac Newton, who developed his strict Scientific Method some fifty to sixty years after Galileo's trial, which is still practiced today.

Now; I notice that you used the term "physical theory" separate from "scientific theory." If you want to argue that, in Galileo's trial, the Catholic Church held up a metaphysical theory of the way physical bodies behave as superior to a scientific theory, as we use the term "scientific" today, then I can agree, because this clearly is what occurred and in that event you may refer to it as a "phyical theory," provided that recognition of its metaphysical epistemological origins is recognized.

To use the terms you have set out, it is the metaphysical origns of the theory of the behavior of physical bodies the Catholic Church confronted Galileo with which defines the "nature of the thing." Not the label "physical theory," which might imply "scientific" in the eyes of many observers.

[PatrickHenry]

... the Catholic Church clearly placed the authority of scripture above that of empirical observation. The primacy of empirical observation and inductive reasoning is what defines the nature of science as we know it today and the epistomelogical question that was confronted in Galileo's trial went to the very heart of what should be considered "scientific."

Exactly. Galileo addressed the issue in a letter which ended up being used against him:
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany. Excerpts:

... I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense ­experiences and necessary demonstrations ...

... it appears that nothing physical which sense ­experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words.

... I should think it would be the part of prudence not to permit anyone to usurp scriptural texts and force them in some way to maintain any physical conclusion to be true, when at some future time the senses and demonstrative or necessary reasons may show the contrary.

More than 350 years later, the Church adopted Galileo's approach: The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Excerpts:

... I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.

[andysandmikesmom]

Again, thanks to you both for a very fine discussion, and PH, again, thanks for those links...a valuable resource for both posters and lurkers alike...

[StJacques]

You did a very fine job providing useful quotes on the Galileo controversy Patrick. Those are some real gems.

[PatrickHenry]

Another service of
Darwin Central
The conspiracy that cares

[donh]

The Catholic Church did have a theory about how the physical world worked. It was not rooted in science.

How is the theory that there could be other intelligent beings on other planets inadvertantly sending us radio waves "rooted in science"? Does that make SETI a non-science? Was the theory of aether non-science? Is string theory a non-science? All important new scientific ideas are based on inspiration that did not perfectly obviously arise in some plodding methodical manner from physical observation. Why should I consider holy inspiration any different from secular inspiration in that regard? Is the Einsteinian universe a scriptural, rather than scientific explanation simply because it doesn't obviously occur to everyone just from observing Newtonian behavior?

The primary use of the word "metaphysical", by the way, encompasses abstract scientific and/or physical explanations of natural behavior. If you, (I think quite improperly) wish to claim that there is some high wall cleanly insulating religious inspiration from physical or scientific explanation, than "supernatural" is the better word.

So...in other words, the Holy See brought forward physical evidence by way of endorsing their physical theory.

Well, huh.

Let's jest dwell for a moment on part of the Pope's 1996 message:

In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.

So it appears to me, that the church does, and did, in fact, think it has/had an, in some manner, scientific theory once opposed to Galileo's, and now in favor (in the sense of not wishing to contradict) Darwin's.