Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'

Las Vegas Sun ^ | 18 Jan 06 | Nicole Winfield

[xzins]

Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design' By NICOLE WINFIELD ASSOCIATED PRESS

VATICAN CITY (AP) -

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.

--

[BlackElk]

E-S: Oh my, you are being sent to re-education camp to re-learn diplomatic skills.

The seat of pagan power???? Today or under Caesar Augustus???? Remember that Julian the Apostate uttered his concession of being conquered by the Gallilean about 11 centuries before Luther. You are welcome to share in that Christian heritage but try not to exclude those who welcome you. An invitation to stay in the guest bedroom is not a transfer of title to the house.

See Sandyeggo's links (at #34) to Lamentabile Sane and Pascendi Domenici Gregis or do you prefer prejudice to knowledge of Catholic teaching???? You don't have to agree but you ought to appreciate the distinction between some perfessor of Bologna and the teachings of Pope St. Pius X and of the Magisterium. Pius X attacked as "Modernism" what you reference as humanism, in 1907, long before the term Secular Humanism was in general use.

May I suggest to your probable horror that Catholics and the reformed agree on about 95% of religious truth and have made the strategic mistake of concentrating on the other 5% to entertain our atheist and agnostic common opponents by a degree of public squabbling to which neither Catholics nor reformed have earned a right.

Chill.

I certainly agree with your tagline as would any Catholic worthy of the name.

[trisham]

This is not going to be the definitive statement on ID by the Vatican, nor is it going to be the last. There is actually a big argument within the Church hierarchy over this issue. The Archbishop of Vienna, a close colleague of Pope Benedict XVI, is a proponent of ID, and on the other side, the Vatican astronomer, is against it (he's a Jesuit). There was an article recently in the publication Inside the Vatican about the debate.

***************

Excellent analysis. I believe you are quite correct. Does the fact that the paper published this article make it an official statement by the Vatican? It seems that is what some have inferred.

[BlackElk]

Your post is incomprehensible gibberish. You should, however, certainly hope never to meet Darwin considering where, unless he had a grace of final repentance, such a meeting would have to take place.

When I need you instead of the popes or Aquinas to interpret Scripture, I will be sure to make you the first to know. Don't hold your breath.

If you claim to be a conservative and that theism is not part of the conservative canon, then you are not a part of the conservative movement.

That religion is not to be taught in the public skewels is axiomatic only since the 1940s but I have come to accepot that as sensible. The sooner the public skewels are abolished the better for taxpayers, parents and students. We need new models to replace the idiocy of Lancastrian (factory) style public ed, the idiocy of Darwin, the idiocy of John Dewey, the idiocy of progressive education, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Does socialist education join atheism as a permissible conservative value????

Parents ought to take responsibility for their own children, create their own schools, home-school, and stop impoverishing their innocent neighbors to fleece them of gigantic sums of money to support public ignorance factories that serve to pass your ideas to other people's innocent children. My wife teaches at such a totally private school and P.S. 666 cannot compete as to the achievement levels at that private and very Catholic school. Similar schools have been created by Bible Christians and even by secular humanist teachers seeking actual education for their own children. If you do not admit the utter failure of P.S. 666 and public skewels generally, you are not living in a rational universe.

Your claims to have proven yur point may satisfy you but they certainly do not convince me. Nor will they. If your conclusions are wrong, what in your argument matters????

Your last paragraph: Dr. Tim Leary, is that you?

[devolve]

...and I don't believe in this guy

...no telling who or what he "hits on"

[spunkets]

"Your post is incomprehensible gibberish."

I see logic isn't one of your strong points.

[nmh]

That's too bad. I put my faith in what God says.

I wonder ... was the "big bang" when God SPOKE it into existence as He stated in the Bible. I think so.

[nmh]

BTW, for those who don't get it ...

Intelligent Design = God

[Quester]

Second, the claim that, "intelligent causes best explain the origin of many features of living systems", is empty. The simple scientific explainaiton suffices.

There is no provable (i.e. demonstrable) scientific explanation which explains the origin and organization of living systems ... minus Intelligent Design.

As there is no provable (i.e. demonstrable) scientific explanation which explains the origin and organization of a Swiss watch ... minus Intelligent Design.

I'll leave it to you as to which system is the most complex.

[redgolum]

The perfessor is, naturally enough, from the University of Bologna.

So he is really full of bologna? Sorry, bad pun.

[xzins]

excellent link. thanks.

[xzins]

IOW, the cause of physical causation was uncaused - and the only possible uncaused cause is God.

Insightful conclusion, AG. I continue to value your input, and that of BB.

That which is discouraging in this piece is that it identifies a polemic against ID. For anyone to struggle against a thing is for that one to have identified it as an adversary.

That is what is discouraging. This is a "Christian" source that views ID as an adversary rather than as an idea.

Fortunately, that is not the final word on the subject within Catholic circles, but the adversarial inclination is at very high positions.

[Varda]

Looking over "LAMENTABILI SANE" and "PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS" again I still find absolutely nothing against biological evolution.

However "PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS" does contain what I consider a brilliant observation, " Modernism leads to atheism and to the annihilation of all religion. The error of Protestantism made the first step on this path; that of Modernism makes the second; atheism makes the next."

Since I consider the American arguments of Intelligent Design to be the product of a nominalistic worldview, I'm glad the Vatican is looking into this.

[Convert from ECUSA]

As always, BlackElk, you nailed it!

[ShadowAce]

Well....this is certainly discouraging.

I got this ping this morning, and I haven't read through the whole thread yet.

However, as a YEC, I do say that creationism is not science. One cannot empirically prove the existance of a creator. That being said, I also believe that science is not the only begetter of Truth, and that science classes should have to affirm this as they teach.

[xzins]

ping to BlackElk's #71, most of which could be said by a biblical protestant.

BE, your posts evidence a very high view of biblical inspiration and authority. That is encouraging to me.

Thanks for this excellent essay.

[siunevada]

Here's a bit more from the CNS story on the same article. Of course we're still not looking at the actual article:

From the church's point of view, Catholic teaching says God created all things from nothing, but doesn't say how, the article said. That leaves open the possibilities of evolutionary mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection.

"God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," it said.

What the church does insist upon is that the emergence of the human supposes a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes, it said. The spiritual element of man is not something that could have developed from natural selection but required an "ontological leap," it said.

The article said that, unfortunately, what has helped fuel the intelligent design debate is a tendency among some Darwinian scientists to view evolution in absolute and ideological terms, as if everything -- including first causes -- can be attributed to chance.

"Science as such, with its methods, can neither demonstrate nor exclude that a superior design has been carried out," it said.

[Blzbba]

"Do you believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God?"


Parts of it. I don't believe that an imperfect being can perfectly translate a perfect message.

[Blzbba]

"<< Here's your award for "First Ignorant Catholic Comment of the Thread"!! Enjoy it - you've earned it! >>

Should be simple work for you to give one specific example of ignorance, then.



The ol' "Catholics aren't Biblical Christians" crap you posted.

[BibChr]

And that is "ignorant" -- meaning that there is something I don't know -- in what specific regard?

Dan

[Blzbba]

"The fact that human body protects itself from disease, ... heals itself from injury, ... operates longer, more effectively, and more efficiently than any device designed by intelligent men ... argues for Intelligent Design. "


The existence of the useless appendix shows that the Creator wasn't very intelligent. Why provide a completely non-working, useless vestigal organ if one is so "intelligent"?

(Of course, it's obvious to most that we've EVOLVED to no longer need the appendix...)

Also, this "intelligent creator" creates us as 'sinful', imperfect beings. The Creator then punishes us for being created imperfectfly and "in sin" by condemning us to hell (even though there's nothing we can do to prevent being born "sinful")...unless He sends us his Only Son to kill. We MUST kill his Only Son to satisfy some Prophecy and then believe in this Son's Resurrection. Let's face it - if Jesus had NOT been crucified, there's no Resurrection and thus, no Christianity. The only way humans can be saved is to kill the Creator's only Son and believe in his subsequent Resurrection.


If I treated my pets in this manner, I'd be thrown in jail on animal cruelty charges.