Well, don't that just beat all

(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.

CBS News

I think that this issue is layed to rest.

8 thoughts on “Well, don't that just beat all”

  1. A Scientist says that ID is not Science. The Vatican agrees with said Scientist, in fact endorsing his view by publishing it. Sounds pretty cut and dried to me.
    <blockquote>re·li·gion (rÄ­-lÄ­j’É™n) pronunciation
    n.

    1.
    1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
    2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.</blockquote>
    vs
    <blockquote>sci·ence (sÄ«’É™ns) pronunciation
    n.

    1.
    1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
    2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
    3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
    2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.
    3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
    4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
    5. Science Christian Science.</blockquote>
    They seem pretty different to me – and rightly so. One is about explaining all that can be explained in a rational, empirical manner, and one is about musing about what cannot be explained.

    I think that the concrete world’s separation from the world of religion and spirituality is important.

    The Pope can say what ever he wants. I think that he should be listened to in regards to Catholicism, and perhaps broad strokes of Christianity at large. But, like the Dali Lama is not the final word on Buddhism, The Pope is not the ruler of all things Christian. However, as his entire life he has studied these topics, perhaps Christians should listen to what he has to say, and reflect on it.

    Even if he has a Pope Hat.

  2. Facchini who actually wrote the specific article in question is of course a scientist, and I have no problem with what he said.

    The Pope in fact has been slightly less clear on the issue. Leaving that aside though, what I question is why you would welcome the basic idea that a religious figure should have any special authority in determining what is, or is not, science.

    You seem to have a mentral construct that says if something is science it cannot be religious and vice versa. I don’t know if their is any basis for that belief. While I accept that some things may be purely in the realm of one or the other, I don’t know that that means all things must be in one realm or the other.

    For example, both science and religion seem to agree that children are produced by copulation between a male and a female. Does this mean that one of those two should be banned from discussions about such things?

    The pope can probably opine on whether something is ‘religious’ or not. Although his expertise might be too narrow even for that. Claiming that a deduction of something being ‘religious’ means it cannot be science and therefore the Pope can rule if something is science seems a huge stretch to me.

    I don’t want Religious figures deciding what is or is not science whether I agree with them or not. It isn’t their role.

  3. He is not an authority on Science, but he is an authority on Religion. Esp, Christian religion, which is the religion espoused by the majority of IDers. So, now we have Authorities in Science saying that it’s not science, and we have Religious Authorities saying that it’s religion, not science.

    Honestly, what more do you want?

  4. Why though would you welcome any religious authority ruling on what is or is not science?

    The Popes view on this matter based upon his authority as a religious figure is no more dispostive than that of Jerry Falwell.

    I wouldn’t grant any credibility to Martha Steward ruling on what is or is not car racing, neither do I place any particular value on a religious leader saying what is and is not science.

    Martha Stewart might be correct if she said go-cart racing isn’t car racing, but that could only be based upon the merits of her argument, not on her authority as a recognized expert in vegatable centerpieces.

  5. The Vatican did not endorse evolution – they said "<em>’intelligent design” is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.</em>".

    What I see here, is that they are helping to ‘draw the line in the sand’ between religion, faith, science and empericalism.

    I agree that a lot of folks do not listen to the Pope. That’s OK. You still have someone who is recognized as an authority by a large number of folks saying that ID <> Science. It will not lay it to rest, I am sure, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction.

  6. Since the Vatican has endorsed evolution is it no a religious theory and should it be banned from being taught in schools?

    The idea that this will ‘lay the issue to rest’ is absurd.

    To a large extent, those who espose young earth creationism also believe that the pope is evil and that the Roman Church is ‘the whore of babylon.’ While I don’t hold with either of those beliefs, it is pretty obvious that the Vatican coming out on one side of this debate won’t end it.

    I frankly question the propriety of the Vatican opining on a Scientific issue at all. If the Vatican wanted to come out against ID on theological grounds I would certainly support them doing so. You can make a very good case that ID is very bad Christian theology, and that is the Vatican’s area of authority and expertise. A Vatican statement on the merits of a scientific theory doesn’t hold any weight at all for me.

  7. […] I started writing this several days ago, not knowing that some major news was going to break in regards to this. However, this does not change anything. This is not about ID, it&#8217;s about tolerance. It&#8217;s about accepting that I do not have the right to choose what is taught to your kids. It&#8217;s that simple. […]

Comments are closed.