• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.

The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields.

At the same time, scientists should recognize that evolutionary theory does not exclude an overall purpose in creation -- a "superior design" that may be realized through secondary causes like natural selection, it said.

The article, published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna in Italy.

The article noted that the debate over intelligent design -- the idea that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than adaptive evolution -- has spread from the United States to Europe.

The problem with intelligent design is that it turns to a "superior cause" -- understood though not necessarily named as God -- to explain supposed shortcomings of evolutionary science. But that's not how science should work, the article said.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science," it said.

The article said a Pennsylvania judge had acted properly when he ruled in December that intelligent design could not be taught as science in schools.

"Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," it said.

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.

From a religious viewpoint, it said, there is no doubt that the human story "has a sense and a direction that is marked by a superior design."
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Victor said:
From a religious viewpoint, it said, there is no doubt that the human story "has a sense and a direction that is marked by a superior design.[/font]
Of course there is.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Just in case you missed it...

"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

Selected excerpts from the report (emphasis added):

The ID movement sometimes presents Catholicism, the world's largest Christian denomination, as an ally in its campaign. While the Church is socially conservative, it has a long theological tradition that rejects fundamentalist creationism.

"Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the demand it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," said the article in the Tuesday edition of the newspaper.

Evolution represents "the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth" and the debate in the United States was "polluted by political positions," wrote Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at Italy's Bologna University.

"So the decision by the Pennsylvania judge seems correct."

...........

An article by Schoenborn in the New York Times in July seemed to signal a Church shift toward intelligent design because it played down a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul that evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

Schoenborn later made it clear the Church accepted evolution as solid science but objected to the way some Darwinists concluded that it proved God did not exist and could "explain everything from the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."


..............

While the Vatican's clarifying position regarding the acceptable merits of teaching "Intelligent Design" as a science can hardly be considered surprising (in light of the Vatican's year's previous declaration that Evolution theory was scientifically sound and theologically acceptable), it certainly does remove any lingering doubts as to the "official" position of the Catholic Church regarding the scientific legitimacy of ID, and it prevents any further mischaracterizations (or wishful thinking) on the part of Christian Evangelical/"Conservative" advocates of ID to suggest or imply that the Catholic Church supports/defends ID as an equally plausible, scientifically merited, and evidence-based theory worthy of equal time and consideration in a science classroom.

Misery and error love company, and the Vatican's refreshing repudiation the current (primarily American Christian protestant) fundamentalist fad to "repackage" (or rename) Creationism by another name is a rare religious endorsement of scientific fact over "pure" religious dogma.

A rose is a rose, by any name, in any language.

"God (or "unnamed supernatural intelligence") did it" is an "answer", but it's not scientific.

[Note: The esteemed Mr. Schoenborn's comments (as noted above) suggesting that Evolution Theory proponents (or, "some Darwinists") submit evolution as "disproof" of any supernatural/deity existence, or as explanation (or validation) of Big Bang theory - misrepresents both the facts and substance of Evolution Theory itself. Evolution proposes no "disproofs" of supernaturalistic cause/effect. Evolution stands on it's own without a need for supernaturalistic intervention as suitable/viable causal evidence/explanation. Such a position does not constitute any (scientifically validated) "disproof". The only thing that Evolution Theory suggests (or more accurately, may lead many to conclude) is that a "god", "entity", "intelligence", or "force" of supernatural origin is not necessary (nor requisite) as/in ancillary support of proffered scientific explanations. This conclusion, of course, can be distressing to those that would wish (for) science to (somehow) validate (or "prove") their faith/belief in a supernatural deity/Intelligence/Creator.

Secondly, it's vitally important to recognize that Evolution Theory does not directly address (or seek to "explain") the most fundamental aspects of "Cosmological Origin" Theories (like the Big Bang). Simply put, scientific evolution (theory) is: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."*
*Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary

Evolution explains the changes in living things, not the "birth" of the cosmos. Why some folks continue to either deliberately or ignorantly lump the two disparate fields of scientific study as one...defies supportive explanation. To be sure, we are all made of "star stuff"...but Evolution Theory indulges no efforts whatsoever to explain where the stars themselves "came from"; nor do "Big Bang" theories measure/explore the "evolving" changes in living organisms.

It's comments/mischaracterizations like those of Mr. Schoenborn (above) that continue to perpetuate the ongoing ignorance and (unwarranted) fear of scientific revelations as they may relate to religious faith and supernaturalistic beliefs regarding claims of devine influence in "creation" of either the cosmos or living organisms .

There is no extant scientific theory of any commonly accepted validity/merit that scientifically "disproves" a "god". None. Any suggestions to the contrary are simply either uniformed, factually in error, or disingenuously justified.

Scientifically...people are left to draw their own conclusions regarding the necessity of any claimed supernatural cause/effect explanations - either within, or without, the benefit of contemporary scientific methodologies/theories/conclusions].
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pah
article said:
Evolution represents "the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth" and the debate in the United States was "polluted by political positions," wrote Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at Italy's Bologna University.

"So the decision by the Pennsylvania judge seems correct."
I'm not sure I can take seriously anything said by a professor at Boloney University.


;)
 

Smoke

Done here.
Please remember that this is the Roman Catholic forum; attacking Roman Catholicism in its own forum isn't permitted.
 
Top