Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome
By IAN FISHER and CORNELIA DEAN
ROME, Jan. 18 - The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.
"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.
"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."
The article was not presented as an official church position. But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI.
Advocates for teaching evolution hailed the article. "He is emphasizing that there is no need to see a contradiction between Catholic teachings and evolution," said Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest. "Good for him."
But Robert L. Crowther, spokesman for the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle organization where researchers study and advocate intelligent design, dismissed the article and other recent statements from leading Catholics defending evolution. Drawing attention to them was little more than trying "to put words in the Vatican's mouth," he said.
L'Osservatore is the official newspaper of the Vatican and basically represents the Vatican's views. Not all its articles represent official church policy. At the same time, it would not be expected to present an article that dissented deeply from that policy.
In July, Christoph Schönborn, an Austrian cardinal close to Benedict, seemed to call into question what has been official church teaching for years: that Catholicism and evolution are not necessarily at odds.
In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times, he played down a 1996 letter in which Pope John Paul II called evolution "more than a hypothesis." He wrote, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."
There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, but advocates for intelligent design posit that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source.
At least twice, Pope Benedict has signaled concern about the issue, prompting questions about his views. In April, when he was formally installed as pope, he said human beings "are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution." In November, he called the creation of the universe an "intelligent project," wording welcomed by supporters of intelligent design.
Many Roman Catholic scientists have criticized intelligent design, among them the Rev. George Coyne, a Jesuit who is director of the Vatican Observatory. "Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be," he said in November, as quoted by the Italian news service ANSA. "Intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
In October, Cardinal Schönborn sought to clarify his own remarks, saying he meant to question not the science of evolution but what he called evolutionism, an attempt to use the theory to refute the hand of God in creation.
"I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained," he said in a speech.
To Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and a Catholic, "That is my own view as well."
"As long as science does not pretend it can answer spiritual questions, it's O.K.," he said.
Dr. Miller, who testified for the plaintiffs in the recent suit in Dover, Pa., challenging the teaching of intelligent design, said Dr. Facchini, Father Coyne and Cardinal Schönborn (in his later statements) were confirming "traditional Catholic thinking." On Dec. 20, a federal district judge ruled that public schools could not present intelligent design as an alternative to evolutionary theory.
In the Osservatore article, Dr. Facchini wrote that scientists could not rule out a divine "superior design" to creation and the history of mankind. But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a design fashioned through an evolutionary process.
"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," he wrote.
Neither Dr. Facchini nor the editors of L'Osservatore could be reached for comment.
Lawrence M. Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, said Dr. Facchini's article was important because it made the case that people did not have to abandon religious faith in order to accept the theory of evolution.
"Science does not make that requirement," he said.
liberalogic said:Yes! Intelligent Design should NOT be in PUBLIC schools! Thank you!
Now I have a question for you-- do you think that in public schools, those who are religious and do not believe in evolution and feel that it contradicts from their beliefs should be exempt from that study?
I've been tossing that around for a few months now because so many people say that evolution is contradicts their beliefs, so do you think that would be adequate to resolve the issue?
gop_jeff said:I think an even better solution would be to discuss both sides of evolution - allow the theory to be taught, then discuss the problems with evolutionary theory.
I go a step farther in my views. I not only embrace ID, but, what's more, I teach my children Creation Science. Many proponents of ID simply take the theory of evolution and tack on God. I, on the other hand, believe that the creation process went exactly as stated in Genesis.liberalogic said:Yes! Intelligent Design should NOT be in PUBLIC schools! Thank you!
Now I have a question for you-- do you think that in public schools, those who are religious and do not believe in evolution and feel that it contradicts from their beliefs should be exempt from that study?
I've been tossing that around for a few months now because so many people say that evolution is contradicts their beliefs, so do you think that would be adequate to resolve the issue?
As a teacher, my tendency is to say, "No." Kids need to be exposed to the most accepted theories in a discipline. With that said, I also think that parents are the primary teachers of their children, so if they wish to have their kids pulled from science, they should sign a waiver.liberalogic said:Yes! Intelligent Design should NOT be in PUBLIC schools! Thank you!
Now I have a question for you-- do you think that in public schools, those who are religious and do not believe in evolution and feel that it contradicts from their beliefs should be exempt from that study?
I've been tossing that around for a few months now because so many people say that evolution is contradicts their beliefs, so do you think that would be adequate to resolve the issue?
liberalogic said:I agree...it would be especially beneficial for a current events class. So I guess that we can all agree that ID should not be taught in science class, while evolution (along with its flaws) can. And of coure-- it would be appropriate for a current issues or foundations iof culture class.
liberalogic said:Yes! Intelligent Design should NOT be in PUBLIC schools! Thank you!
Now I have a question for you-- do you think that in public schools, those who are religious and do not believe in evolution and feel that it contradicts from their beliefs should be exempt from that study?
I've been tossing that around for a few months now because so many people say that evolution is contradicts their beliefs, so do you think that would be adequate to resolve the issue?
manu1959 said:no...... they should be forced to belive a therory......and sing dradel dradel dradel but not be allowed to sing silent night....and there will be no christmas trees in the class room ..... or talk about why we celebrate christmas unless it is in the contxt of helping the economy unless a republican is in the white house in wich case we are suposed to boycot all the "red" stores or sit on santas lap .... or read tom sawyer ..... or celebrate indigenous peoples day ... or get grades cuz no one should feel bad ... or compete cuz no one should lose......
damn mr p and kath i tried as long as i could i just can't do it
Kagom said:Honestly, ID is just Creationism in a nice, neat little package with a bow on it. It is, as someone said earlier, evolution with God tacked on. It is not real science. I do believe, however, it could be introduced in a theology class or philosophy class, but as a science class: No.
I'm not saying science is the only way to ascertain truth, but in this case ID isn't science.gop_jeff said:As I've said many times on this board, science is not the only way to ascertain truth. I would agree with your last sentence, but I'm so tired of hearing people talk about how ID isn't science, so ID is false.
I'm not ranting at you, just ranting.
gop_jeff said:As I've said many times on this board, science is not the only way to ascertain truth. I would agree with your last sentence, but I'm so tired of hearing people talk about how ID isn't science, so ID is false.
I'm not ranting at you, just ranting.
liberalogic said:No one said that it was absolutely false, but whatever it is, it isn't science, hence it should not be taught in a science classroom. For a philosophy class or a class on religion, I see no problem incorporating it into the curriculum.
I can see your point in using it as a 'non-science' non-theory. However, I think that would be disrespecting the thousands, (millions?) that believe in creationism in one form or another. I think that is NOT the point of public schools either.no1tovote4 said:I think it should be used as a foremost example in a class teaching Scientific Process as an example of what can be construed as psuedoscience but does not fit into the Scientific Process.
I believe that a poor understanding of the Process itself leads many to the false notion that ID is scientific.
Then as a Theory itself it would need to be taught in Philosophy or in Social Studies, not as a Scientific Theory.
