Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design Options

[AnimoTeneo]

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" — whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.

In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."

---

What do you guys think?

It's a heated topic right now in the US in the education sector. I prefer the evolution theory compared to intelligent design. Is their any problems or debates with the issue between evolution vs. intelligent design in the Philippine schools?

This post has been edited by AnimoTeneo: Nov 19 2005, 08:40 AM

[charlatan]

The theory on having a higher power that pulls the strings on the complexity of the universe has to be proven and justified. Why the hell is it taught in science class? It's just an intellectualized version of the Biblical creation.

Supposedly there is a higher power. This higher power transcends human reason, transcends the limits of human understanding. Science works with the tangible. This higher power is greater than anything than can be thought, greater than thought itself.

So as a feeble human being, I'll just stick to the evolution theory, because it works within my control.

[Sashimi Boy]

@Charlatan: Works within "my control," huh? You a "feeble human being," ey? Heheh.

@animoteneo: I agree with Rev. Coyne, though. I'd prefer the religious to practice scientific integrity.

[fray torquemada]

Initially, my reaction was "there goes another liberal Jesuit pushing for his hopelessly liberal agenda." This time, however, my paleo-conservative medieval brand of Catholicism will stand down on this. Intelligent design is another effort by my fellow conservative cohorts in the U.S. to insert religion in public schools under the guise of "science." It's not science and it will never be science....it's more like a subset of philosophy of religion. As an American and a believer in God, I will support it to be included in the American public high school curriculum as some form of elective (a philosophy/civics course perhaps) but not as form of alternative science course--only to stave-off in my own little way the out of control over-secularism in American society. But as a Catholic, the Papacy should NEVER give its imprimatur on it....The papacy should know better that the proponents of this "seeming science" are the very anti-papist, anti-catholic evangelical, pentecostal groups. Politically, l may align with these Bible-thumpers now and then. But as a defender of traditional Catholicism, I hope this Pope keeps mum about the issue. Let this remain an evangelical/Protestant issue.

As for the Philippines, this is a non-issue. Filipinos are surrounded by articles of faith 24-7. Faith is etched into the bones of the Pinoy. He will take his evolution course, and for the most part, remain faithful in his religion.

This post has been edited by fray torquemada: Nov 20 2005, 03:25 AM

[AnimoTeneo]

Initially, my reaction was "there goes another liberal Jesuit pushing for his hopelessly liberal agenda." This time, however, my paleo-conservative medieval brand of Catholicism will stand down on this. Intelligent design is another effort by my fellow conservative cohorts in the U.S. to insert religion in public schools under the guise of "science." It's not science and it will never be science....it's more like a subset of philosophy of religion. As an American and a believer in God, I will support it to be included in the American public high school curriculum as some form of elective (a philosophy/civics course perhaps) but not as form of alternative science course--only to stave-off in my own little way the out of control over-secularism in American society. But as a Catholic, the Papacy should NEVER give its imprimatur on it....The papacy should know better that the proponents of this "seeming science" are the very anti-papist, anti-catholic evangelical, pentecostal groups. Politically, l may align with these Bible-thumpers now and then. But as a defender of traditional Catholicism, I hope this Pope keeps mum about the issue. Let this remain an evangelical/Protestant issue.

As for the Philippines, this is a non-issue. Filipinos are surrounded by articles of faith 24-7. Faith is etched into the bones of the Pinoy. He will take his evolution course, and for the most part, remain faithful in his religion.

Yes, that was also my thinking. I do not see it as part of a biological science curriculum. I had a discussion about this issue with my Ethics professor. And what I said was that it cannot be really part of science since it has no scientific proof and it ends up talking about "faith" in the end. I also find it amusing when the religious here in America cannot accept the fact that they can take the evolution theory and still remain faithful to any organize religion they belong.

[Sashimi Boy]

Initially, my reaction was "there goes another liberal Jesuit pushing for his hopelessly liberal agenda." This time, however, my paleo-conservative medieval brand of Catholicism will stand down on this. Intelligent design is another effort by my fellow conservative cohorts in the U.S. to insert religion in public schools under the guise of "science." It's not science and it will never be science....it's more like a subset of philosophy of religion. As an American and a believer in God, I will support it to be included in the American public high school curriculum as some form of elective (a philosophy/civics course perhaps) but not as form of alternative science course--only to stave-off in my own little way the out of control over-secularism in American society. But as a Catholic, the Papacy should NEVER give its imprimatur on it....The papacy should know better that the proponents of this "seeming science" are the very anti-papist, anti-catholic evangelical, pentecostal groups. Politically, l may align with these Bible-thumpers now and then. But as a defender of traditional Catholicism, I hope this Pope keeps mum about the issue.

Early Christians were said to have a theology of the soul wherein the soul only grew with efforts to reconcile urges of the body and urges of the spirit. In a similar vein, maybe the Church can grow through the process of reconciling the liberal and the conservative. This is not a dialectic argument for a synthesis. Rather, development through the EFFORT of reconciliation itself.

[Cubao Fleahouse]

my view here is that the vatican implicitly supports the theory of evolution introduced by charles darwin. matagal nang itinuro sa atin ito sa ateneo: God created the universe; science explains in detail how God created the universe. theology and science.

if you will notice, the Genesis description of how God created the universe and darwin's theory of evolution is perfectly compatible if the bible were read correctly. intelligent design, kung ano man yan, is nothing more than the latest attempt by creationists to give scientific meaning to words that have no scientific aim. that's because creationists completely missed the point--to me, the real message of Genesis is that the universe didn't make itself and had a creator.

what's important is for Catholic believers to know how science sees things in order to have a fuller understanding of how things really are.

[hornsby]

intelligent design, kung ano man yan , is nothing more than the latest attempt by creationists to give scientific meaning to words that have no scientific aim. that's because creationists completely missed the point--to me, the real message of Genesis is that the universe didn't make itself and had a creator

thought i heard the best (and most fascetious) description of ID in comedy central's Colbert Report yesterday.

ID -- belief that existence was caused by a super large, invisible man
Evolutionism -- belief that existence was caused by super tiny, invisible strands of energy strings

This post has been edited by hornsby: Nov 30 2005, 04:48 AM

[Dear Jessie]

If the frog turns into a prince quickly, it is a fairy tale. If the frog turns into a prince slowly, it is called modern science.

This post has been edited by Dear Jessie: Mar 22 2009, 03:41 PM

[mac_bolan00]

"...so complex that some higher being must have made it..." i can't believe college graduates would even accept this argument for god. and a creator is not necessarily a god. men alter their natural surroundings into hopelessly complex situations. that doesn't make them gods. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)