Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'

The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.

The article in Tuesday's editions of L'Osservatore Romano was the latest in a series of interventions by Vatican officials - including the pope - on the issue that has dominated headlines in the United States.

The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Darwin's theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution "represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth."

He lamented that certain American "creationists" had brought the debate back to the "dogmatic" 1800s, and said their arguments weren't science but ideology.

"This isn't how science is done," he wrote. "If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it's not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science."

Intelligent design "doesn't belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin's explanation is unjustified," he wrote.

"It only creates confusion between the scientific and philosophical and religious planes."

Supporters of "intelligent design" hold that some features of the universe and living things are so complex they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism - a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific language and say it does not belong in science curriculum.

Facchini said he recognized some Darwin proponents erroneously assume that evolution explains everything. "Better to recognize that the problem from the scientific point of view remains open," he said.

But he concluded: "In a vision that goes beyond the empirical horizon, we can say that we aren't men by chance or by necessity, and that the human experience has a sense and a direction signaled by a superior design."

The article echoed similar arguments by the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. George Coyne, who said "intelligent design" wasn't science and had no place in school classrooms.

Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed in off-the-cuff comments in November that the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticized those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

As I said, ID already fell. It is not science.

And even if this is true, it's irrelevant without first defining the relationship between science and other elements of explaining reality. If reality can be explained entirely by "science" and ID is not science, that's one thing. If reality can only be explained by both non-scientific and scientific analysis and ID is not science, ID might still be a superior way of explaining reality than any purely scientific analysis. On the other hand, it might be a very poor way of explaining reality both in its scientific and philosophical analysis. But simply shouting "it's not science" is not a very telling blow struck against it, unless you are the sort of philosopher who believes that the only analysis that matters is scientific analysis. But such a belief is self-refuting because the belief itself is already a philosophical statement, presumably based on philosophical analysis.

Since you won't lay your philosophical cards on the table, one can't tell what you believe about much of anything. Shouting "it's not science" really doesn't help much.

Incidentally, what you have been writing is not science either. It's philosophy (of science), apparently a materialist philosophy of science, though it's hard to tell.

You're not doing science, sir. So maybe the IDers could be helpful to you after all.

" The sign Jesus is speaking of here ... refers particularly to a sign showing that He was the promised Messiah of Israel.

When He speaks, He is speaking to everyone. That's why it is written. He is speaking to the reader. The Messiah of Israel is God.

" It does not speak to the broader use of signs by God, ... as God used many in the Bible"

It sure does.

"Further, Paul states that nature does give testimony to the existence of God ...

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Paul can't overrule God. Logic applies here. Nature doesn't speak. It is not a prophet. Listening to trees, mountains, oceans is what pagans do. Roman's 18-32 is parable. This wrath of God parable, simply means we live in this world.

" The sign Jesus is speaking of here ... refers particularly to a sign showing that He was the promised Messiah of Israel.

When He speaks, He is speaking to everyone. That's why it is written. He is speaking to the reader. The Messiah of Israel is God.

Is God speaking to you here ?
Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Hint ... Context is your friend.

The sign Jesus is speaking of here ... refers particularly to a sign showing that He was the promised Messiah of Israel.

It does not speak to the broader use of signs by God, ... as God used many in the Bible (i.e. the rainbow, the Star, Gideon's fleece, etc.)

It sure does.

Then ... how do you reconcile this usage of a sign by God ... ?
1 Kings 13:1 1 And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense.

2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

3 And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which the LORD hath spoken; Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out.

4 And it came to pass, when king Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand from the altar, saying, Lay hold on him. And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, so that he could not pull it in again to him.

5 The altar also was rent, and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the LORD.
Look up the word 'sign' in your Bible concordance ... and see how liberally the Lord makes use of them.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Paul can't overrule God. Logic applies here. Nature doesn't speak. It is not a prophet. Listening to trees, mountains, oceans is what pagans do. Roman's 18-32 is parable. This wrath of God parable, simply means we live in this world.

That nature does not speak to you is surprising.

How else, then, ... does science come to be ?

I supported my claim in four or five well-articulated postings about the claims of science and philosophy to explain reality and how they interrelated. You have failed to address any of this. It begins to appear that you think they are totally unrelated. Of course, how you would know this without standing on the ground either of science or philosophy or both, is a mystery to me. Indeed, it's hard to know what grounds you stand on for your claims about what science does.

But that's your pattern. You never engage my arguments--just proclaim that you reject my conclusions. Have it your way. Proclaim to yourself whatever you want.

I've supported every claim I've made, at length. Specifically, my claim that your reasoning is incoherent was a conclusion drawn after a long chain of reasoning. I call that supporting my claim. You may disagree with my support, but simply to say I did not support it is, well, just a tad incoherent.

"You never engage my arguments... I've supported every claim I've made, at length.

You've failed to address the logic of anything I've said. Instead you bring up some etherial "philosophy" and claim science has abandoned it. Philosophy, as I said, Is the love of knowledge. Nouns don't address logic.

"Indeed, it's hard to know what grounds you stand on for your claims about what science does. "

Learn what the scientific mathod is, and try to understand it.

"my claim that your reasoning is incoherent was a conclusion drawn after a long chain of reasoning."

Nonsense. Rambling on about some etherial "philosophy" is not logic.

I did not ramble about etherial philosophy. I did not claim science abandoned it. I believe they are interrelated. Some scientists abandon philosophy.

I wrote very precisely about what scientific method is. I claimed very logically that empirical science cannot by its own methods prove the absence of non-empirical realities because science can only measure empirical realities. If indeed some extra-empirical, non-measurable reality exists (a soul, for instance) its existence cannot be proven by science but neither can its nonexistence be proven . . . nuless one first makes a philosophical claim that only empirical, measurable reality exists.

This is elementary logic, elementary philosophy of science. It's not "etherial." You don't know what you are talking about. I know exactly what science claims for itself and at what point supposed scientific claims have become philosophical claims.

You don't know the difference and you dismiss what you obviously don't understand as "ethereal" (that's the way the word is spelled, incidentally). That's a copout. But so too was your initial response to ID: "it's not science."

When you've learned the ABCs of philosophy of science and decide whether you are a materialist or not, let me know. Until then, there's nothing more to be said. Throw whatever nonsense you want to at me. I won't be reading any more of your responses. If you cannot even understand the simple points I've made about the relationship between the explanatory limits of science, philosophy, and religion, then you have no business talking about ID.

So, in short, government schools create governable drones that confront a world that basically rewards and encourages cheating, such that government is profoundly needed to govern the .... cheaters.

Hahahahaha!!!! Looks that way to me too, gobucks!

But that unfortunate development seems to have something to do with the public schools not transmitting the cultural inheritance anymore. That is to say, classical and Judeo-Christian moral studies are no longer permitted: They are "beyond the pale" -- even though they have been the foundation of the progress of Western Civiliation for more than two millennia by now. (Go figure).

Some people say that such derilection of the core curriculum of living, thinking human-beings -- which these days seems to constitute a course in revolt from the "classical" model -- amounts to an "alternative morality" in and of itself, given its claims to ontological and moral certitude.

But such as do so seem like idiots to me. The language of the "idiot" goes back at least to Heraclitus. And the language of "the fool" to ancient Judaism, plus Socratic, plus Stoic sources.

How many ways does one have to be told that, on the findings of the greatest thinkers of the human past, one's own little attempt at "tilting windmills" does not amount to much, on the great scale of things?

And yet, this seems to be the very stuff of modern, partisan, American politics. YIKES!!!!

And may God have mercy!

Thanks so much for writing, gobucks, for sharing your thoughts....

"I wrote very precisely about what scientific method is."

No you did not.

"I claimed very logically that empirical science cannot by its own methods prove the absence of non-empirical realities because science can only measure empirical realities."

There you go, partially. Science only deals with observable reality. Since you can not prove a negative, science doesn't care about any such thing as a non empirical "reality". Such matters do not belong in the science class, whatsoever.

"If indeed some extra-empirical, non-measurable reality exists (a soul, for instance) its existence cannot be proven by science but neither can its nonexistence be proven ."

It's the equivalent of the Easter bunny. It doesn't belong in the science class, regardless of what worth anyone puts on it. In fact, I told you exactly what the soul was. It still doesn't belong in the science class.

"...your initial response to ID: "it's not science."

I proved it's not science. I proved you have to leave science and wander elsewhere to pursue it. It's not amenable to the scientific method.

"When you've learned the ABCs of philosophy of science...

Whatever.

...empirical science cannot by its own methods prove the absence of non-empirical realities because science can only measure empirical realities. If indeed some extra-empirical, non-measurable reality exists (a soul, for instance) its existence cannot be proven by science but neither can its nonexistence be proven . . . unless one first makes a philosophical claim that only empirical, measurable reality exists.

Which apparently is the claim of the metaphysical naturalists/scientific materialists out there: that only empirical, measurable reality exists. But that statement does not and cannot derive from the application of the scientific method.

What such folks refuse to acknowledge is that their claim is in fact an ontological statement -- that is to say, a philosophical one. They refuse to see that they have embroiled themselves in self-contradiction: For one cannot claim that ontology is "measurable" in any scientific sense. Yet they make an ontological claim anyway.

As you know, ontology is the philosophical study of being. How do you put being under a microscope? Or how see it by means of a high-powered telescope? Do we therefore say that being does not exist? To say as much is not merely a self-contradiction on the part of scientific materialists; it is also a profound self-denial. This is an exercise in sheer irrationality.

I don't know why it seems so difficult for people like Dawkins or Lewontin to grasp this point.

This situation reminds me of Marx's system. (And of course, Lewontin is a self-avowed Marxist as well as a materialist of the most rigid sort.) The system is claimed to be simply perfect -- just so long as you don't look at the details; therefore all questioning of its premises and claims are strictly forbidden. You either buy the system whole-hog, or you become its "enemy."

This is a deplorable situation for science to find itself in. FWIW.

Thanks for your great posts, Dionysiusdecordealcis.

" Which apparently is the claim of the metaphysical naturalists/scientific materialists out there: that only empirical, measurable reality exists. But that statement does not and cannot derive from the application of the scientific method."

Of course no one can prove a negative. Science just ignores what it can't look at with the scientific method. The burden is not on science to show that what can not be demonstrated doesn't exist. The burden of evidence lies with the person claiming something does exist. Science is rightly justified in excluding those things, and the evidence for those things, which are in conflict with what it can clearly see and account for.

"For one cannot claim that ontology(the philosophical study of being) is "measurable" in any scientific sense. How do you put being under a microscope? Or how see it by means of a high-powered telescope?"

Being is the equivalent of is. If the object physically exists in this world, it's amenable to scientific study. If it's a concept, it's amenable to rational examination.

"Do we therefore say that being does not exist? To say as much is not merely a self-contradiction on the part of scientific materialists; it is also a profound self-denial. This is an exercise in sheer irrationality."

There's nothing irrational about making a rational examination and coming to a conclusion, that something in particular doesn't exist. The rational examination is on the evidence claimed for the thing described. If the thing described conflicts with what can be scientifically known and observed, then that rules that particular thing out as "being". That thing can be said to not exist in reality.

" This situation reminds me of Marx's system. ...You either buy the system whole-hog, or you become its "enemy.""

Politics is a rational endeavor. In general, it is not a proper subject for science. The comment though, was meant to portray science as a political enterprise. It is not. The scientific method is the foundation of science and is the rule by which science must abide by. When the philosophy can't abide by, or attempts to modify that rule, it is not science. There's no politics, or premises involved here, the scientific method is the rule.

Of course no one can prove a negative. Science just ignores what it can't look at with the scientific method.

I'll try once more. The decision whether to ignore what cannot be measured, what is outside scientific method, is not a scientific decision. It is a philosophical decision. When a scientist decides to ignore what may or may not lie outside science's measuring, empirical analysis, one is effectively saying, it either doesn't exist or if it does, it doesn't matter, hence can be ignored.

That claim is itself already a philosophical claim. When yhou wrote the words I italicized above, you spoke as a philosopher, not as a scientist. Science cannot speak these words based on science. Science cannot decide, from within science whether one can ignore what may or may not lie outside science. When a scientist decides to ignore what may or may not lie outside science, he has left science behind and is now acting as an amateur philosopher. If someone challenges his position, he may not appeal to science to defend it. He must defend his position using philosophical data and reasoning.

He could, purely as a scientist, remain agnostic about what may or may not lie outside science. But that is not "ignoring it." That is saying, "I cannot, as a scientist, conclude whether or not anything exists outside of the scientifically measurable. I take no position one way or another. I leave the discussion of what may or may lie there, to others who wish to discuss it."

That is quite different from claiming to have scientific reasons for deciding to ignore what lies outside science.

One may not enter into the philosophical discussion of whether or not anything lies outside the boundaries of science with scientific data or analysis or scientific reasoning. If one choose not to remain agnostic, that is, if one chooses to take a position that indeed nothing exists outside science or that something does exist outside science, one can only stake out that claim based on philosophical analysis and reasoning.

I suspect you thought you, based on science alone, were being agnostic about whether anything lies outside science. If you had truly remained agnostic about it, you would have been a good scientist because science cannot say one way or another. But in your earlier posts you did not remain agnostic. You invoked science to make philosophical claims about the non-existence of non-measurable, non-empirical reality. That was both bad science and bad philosophy. Mostly it simply confused science and philosophy, ruining your efforts at both.

I am actually trying to help you clarify your life as an enthusiastic proponent of science. You'd be a better scientist if you recognized when you are lapsing over into philosophy with your claims about what science can and cannot do.

But you have good company. As Betty Boop pointed out, an awful lot of scientists are confused about these matters. They think they just want to be left alone to do their science without interference from believers of one philosophical or religious bent or another. But in fact most of them without realizing it are constantly making philosophical claims, naively doing bad philosophy and bad science.

"I'll try once more. The decision whether to ignore what cannot be measured, what is outside scientific method, is not a scientific decision. It is a philosophical decision."

The scientific method requires that science ignore it, not the individual.

" One may not enter into the philosophical discussion of whether or not anything lies outside the boundaries of science with scientific data or analysis or scientific reasoning."

As I said to bettyboop, if it conflicts with science, the thing doesn't exist. Reality always overrules creative imagination.

" But you have good company. As Betty Boop pointed out, an awful lot of scientists are confused about these matters. "

I'm not confused, as post #57 points out, you must leave science to pursue matters that are not a proper subject of science. Post #57 also contains the fact that in the case of ID, the path conflicts with both science and Matt 12:37-39.

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.