Looking for a "Bright"? Try a Catholic.

The official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, agrees with the recent decision in Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover [PA] that Intelligent Design doesn't presently belong in the science classroom.

"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 [ . . . ]

"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."

Different signals seemed to be sent last July, however, when

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." [ . . . ]

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. [ . . . ]

[However, i]n 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.

According to Dr. Miller, who testified for the plaintiffs (against teaching ID as science) in Dover, this position is "traditional Catholic thinking":

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.

(A tip of the chapeau to Althouse.)

UPDATE: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

I was trying to remember that quote, and who said it, and damned if it didn't show up at Nobody Asked. Ah, symblogosis.

Comments

[realpc]

Intelligent Design is just a criticism of neo-Darwinism. Teaching neo-Darwinism, as though it has been proven, is NOT scientific.
The truth is that no one knows what drives evolution. People like Dawkins say that the origin and evolution of life can be explained with existing scientific theories, but they are wrong.

If you only teach one theory, and do not mention any criticisms of that theory, the implication is that the theory has been proven. Or at least that the theory is backed up by some kind of evidence. The neo-Darwinist explanation of evolution is nothing but a guess, or a hope.

Should students be made aware that it has not been proven? Not if the goal is to continue indoctrinating them into secular humanism.

[Tom Strong]

Teaching neo-Darwinism, as though it has been proven, is NOT scientific.

Aaargh.

There is no conspiracy to indoctrinate kids into "neo-Darwinism". Creationists claim this, but it's sheer bullshit. High schools science teachers do not teach that there is no God and evolution proves it.

All they teach is the theory of evolution. Find me a textbook that does otherwise, in use in multiple public schools, and I'll retract my opinion.

[realpc]

"All they teach is the theory of evolution."

That is not true. They teach neo-Darwinism, which is one theory of how evolution works.

This is Dawkins' definition of Darwinism:

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparent purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind."

This version is taught in biology classes. It says that mutations are always random errors, never purposeful responses to environmental changes. And it is taught as proven fact, not as a hypothesis.

Evolution is as good as proven, neo-Darwinism is merely a hypothesis about how evolution works.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I swear, this whole argument makes me wish I still drank.

The whole argument depends on people on both sides being ignorant about the other, and sometimes about their own sides' histories'.

Evolution doesn't explain "biogenesis" but it doesn't purport to. It says there is a mechanism by which complexity emerges. That mechanism is well understood, has been observed in practice, and can be simulated computationally. There is nothing to suggest any reason to think that, in the presence of liquid water, some other gunk, and sufficient time, life won't always arise.

So what? If that's what happens, and there is a Designer, then that's the way the Designer built it.

On the other hand, if there's no Designer, and that's the way it happens, isn't that pretty astonishing in itself?

[michael reynolds]

The Catholics are the smart Christians. They play the long game. And because they play the long game they understand that it is destructive to faith to reach for empirical support. Scientific theory can shift -- it's supposed to -- and the Catholics want faith to be untouched by the winds of change. They understand that faith is not supposed to have evidentiary support.

Catholics have been at the game for a long time, they've survived, they have some skills. They carry the weight of Christendom, even to this day. By comparison, evangelicals are pretty much idiots and Jehovah's Witnesses, of course, are a dumb as Labrador Retrievers.

In fact, here's my helpful list of Christian denominations matched with average IQ's among church heirarchy:

Roman Cathholic: 130
Episcopalian: 125
Lutheran: 110
Presbyterian: 100
Methodist: 100
Mormon: 95
Southern Baptist: 90
Assemblies of God: 85
Hillbillies-with-Snakes: 64
Jehovah's Witness: 19
Jews For Jesus trace

This list is entirely reliable and accurate.

[Schonborn Site]

If you are interested in more information on Cardinal Schonborn, as well as his views and ongoing contributions to this debate, you might be interested in visited the site/blog I direct:

http://blog.cardinalschonborn.com

and

http://www.cardinalschonborn.com

thanks!

[amba]

"Jews for Jesus, trace" -- I love it.

I actually know a very bright Methodist and (are you ready for this?) a very bright Mormon (convert). But then, they're not in the church hierarchy.

[triticale]

I was, altho the consensus is that I look less of a Yid than my siblings, approached on the street 25 years ago by a Jew for Jesus. I responded with a big smile, "My son's baptised Catholic." None of them have bothered me since.

[Tom Strong]

Most Mormons are bright. They do a very good job of encouraging their kids to be educated, well-informed citizens. Though they do seem to have a marked cultural disposition towards science-fiction.

[realpc]

"There is nothing to suggest any reason to think that, in the presence of liquid water, some other gunk, and sufficient time, life won't always arise."

Charlie,

Give me one reason to think that it will.
And first you say there is no reason to doubt life could just create itself, just like that. And then you go on to say it would be astonishing.
Well yeah, it would be astonishing, because there is absolutely no reason to think it could happen.
How can you be astonished at something you believe is so easy and probable?

"On the other hand, if there's no Designer, and that's the way it happens, isn't that pretty astonishing in itself?"

[amba]

If it can happen "by itself," then there is something about the basic nature, the "design" of matter and energy, that predisposes it to happen. How did that happen?

[realpc]

amba,

I think there is a natural "law of complexity," and this is related to the idea of a universal intelligence.
If the universe is intelligent, if it is made out of information (whatever exactly information is), then we might expect it to evolve towards higher levels of complexity.

If there is a natural law of complexity, then neo-Darwinism is wrong. The mutations are not just random errors -- they are the result of an intelligent and creative striving.

[michael reynolds]

Tom:
They're living in Salt Lake City. How bright can they be? Contrast that with the Roman Catholics and Rome.

My problem with the Mormons is that they apparently didn't think the story of the Bible was quite crazy enough. Virgin birth, a God who is exterminating people one minute and running on about meekness the next, resurrection, the schizo raving of Revelations. Not enough for the Mormons, they need buried tablets, magic decoder stones, an angel named Moroni (seriously, how tough was middle school for that guy?) and wars between Indian tribes over who would be the beta version of the Jews?