Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article

[buffalo]

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.

more…

 

[fkpl]

In a recent article, Cardinal Schoenborn of Vienna takes the position that so-called “neo-Darwinism” is not necessarily at odds with Church teaching concerning God’s order and purpose in creation, but that certain scientists have crossed the threshold from science into theology by proclaiming that random selection and random adaptation somehow preclude God. In this sense they are wrong. It is one thing to say, as a scientise, “I have no scientific proof of the existence of God” but quite another for the scientist to say “my physical, i.e. scientific, evidence disproves the existence of God”. This is the problem. If science and religion don’t tread on each other’s turf there is no incompatibliity.

Cardinal Schoenborn argues that purpose and order in creation can be apprehended by reason and philosophy or, as he defines it, the “science of common experience”. The cardinal disagrees with those who proclaim that it is “faith” alone that evidences the teleological in the universe. He maintains, and I agree with him, that reason alone is enough to apprehend the reality of the metaphysical plane.

This huge dust-up concerning natural selection and so-called “intelligent design” is really a tempest in a teapot. It arises only because scientists try to invade theology and theologians try to invade science. It everyone stayed in their own intellectual neighborhoods the world would be a lot better off.

 

[buffalo]

fkpl:

In a recent article, Cardinal Schoenborn of Vienna takes the position that so-called “neo-Darwinism” is not necessarily at odds with Church teaching concerning God’s order and purpose in creation, but that certain scientists have crossed the threshold from science into theology by proclaiming that random selection and random adaptation somehow preclude God. In this sense they are wrong. It is one thing to say, as a scientise, “I have no scientific proof of the existence of God” but quite another for the scientist to say “my physical, i.e. scientific, evidence disproves the existence of God”. This is the problem. If science and religion don’t tread on each other’s turf there is no incompatibliity.

Cardinal Schoenborn argues that purpose and order in creation can be apprehended by reason and philosophy or, as he defines it, the “science of common experience”. The cardinal disagrees with those who proclaim that it is “faith” alone that evidences the teleological in the universe. He maintains, and I agree with him, that reason alone is enough to apprehend the reality of the metaphysical plane.

This huge dust-up concerning natural selection and so-called “intelligent design” is really a tempest in a teapot. It arises only because scientists try to invade theology and theologians try to invade science. It everyone stayed in their own intellectual neighborhoods the world would be a lot better off.

But faith and reason are not in opposition. Science (limited by its own definition) is part of the truth of the universe.

 

[Riley259]

Read The Design Revolution by William Dembski for the clearest explanation of intelligent design and it’s precepts. There has been alot of rhetoric and presumptions regarding this subject and some of it appears to be unfair. Please go to the source and judge for yourself if any of this stuff has merit.

 

[Ortho]

Riley259:

Read The Design Revolution by William Dembski for the clearest explanation of intelligent design and it’s precepts. There has been alot of rhetoric and presumptions regarding this subject and some of it appears to be unfair. Please go to the source and judge for yourself if any of this stuff has merit.

His stuff may have merit, but that does not mean it is natural science.

 

[bones_IV]

buffalo:

But faith and reason are not in opposition. Science (limited by its own definition) is part of the truth of the universe.

Oh but of course. The Vatican newspaper isn’t always right, but a majority of their stuff I agree with. Atheistic science just plain makes me want to puke. YUCHHHHHH. The expression I get when I think of it. Can’t satisfy everybody.

 

[Ortho]

bones_IV:

Oh but of course. The Vatican newspaper isn’t always right, but a majority of their stuff I agree with. Atheistic science just plain makes me want to puke. YUCHHHHHH. The expression I get when I think of it. Can’t satisfy everybody.

What is atheistic science?

 

[bones_IV]

Ortho:

What is atheistic science?

atheistic science which supresses God from science. For example atheistic scientists are pro-abortion. That’s an example. Also I would read John Paul II’s

Fide et Ratio

 

[fkpl]

buffalo:

But faith and reason are not in opposition. Science (limited by its own definition) is part of the truth of the universe.

I agree. I didn’t, or more properly Cardinal Shoenborn didn’t, say they were. What he said was that one does not have to rely on faith to apprehend pupose and order in Creation. Faith more completely informs and fulfills that knowledge but it is not a sine qua non for such knowledge. Reason and philosophy (the “science of common experience”) are sufficient for the purpose.

Science, given its reductionist methodology and mechanistic technique, has nothing to say about ultimate causation, except the profession of ignorance. Science does not disprove God. Some scientists are atheists but they have nothing but opinion to support their beliefs.

Science is not dangerous. Secularism and positivism are dangerous.

 

[amor]

One thing everyone should know is that the “Vatican newspaper” is not an official newspaper. It can be said to have a kind of quasi-official status, but it is not truly any kind of official newspaper. There is an official journal of the Holy See however. The “Vatican newspaper” as you might expect is just sold on the street by people who looked like ordinary people – not priests – who would be selling newspapers (as well as other goods IIRC). So being published in the “Vatican newspaper” does not give what is published the character of Church teaching or anything official. The weight something published there has just lies in the individual personal authority of the one who made the statement. And knowing which individual it was, I am inclined to say that his personal authority is close to zero for me. Much greater would be the authority of the Cardinal who published in the New York Times, or the authority of a Pope for that matter.

Sometimes however things are published there which give us a sense of the “mind of the Church” such as when a commentary on new legislation or a new ruling is published – such as IIRC was published when the Holy See ruled that Mormon Baptisms were invalid.

 

[Ortho]

bones_IV:

atheistic science which supresses God from science. For example atheistic scientists are pro-abortion. That’s an example. Also I would read John Paul II’s

Fide et Ratio

Natural science is the stury of natural phenomena using the scientific method. Natural science is confined to the natural realm. God is not detectable by natural science since God is not in the natural realm.

What experiment can one do to detect God? If you can demonstrate God exists through the natural science scientific method, it is surely worth a Nobel and would be the greatest scientific achievement of all time. It would also put God in the realm of the natural.

Natural science simply does not include God.

 

[bones_IV]

Ortho:

Natural science is the stury of natural phenomena using the scientific method. Natural science is confined to the natural realm. God is not detectable by natural science since God is not in the natural realm.

What experiment can one do to detect God? If you can demonstrate God exists through the natural science scientific method, it is surely worth a Nobel and would be the greatest scientific achievement of all time. It would also put God in the realm of the natural.

Natural science simply does not include God.

Really? Is that so? Then how do you explain the Shroud of Turin? If that’s not proof that God exists then I don’t know what is. I tell you, some scientists saw the Shroud of Turin and repented and some obviously rejected it went on their own merry way. The argument that natural sciences simply does not include God is rediculous. God reflects himself through nature. And it is through nature that we can get to know the nature of God himself. Your argument holds no ground.

 

[Orogeny]

bones_IV:

Really? Is that so? Then how do you explain the Shroud of Turin? If that’s not proof that God exists then I don’t know what is.

If the shroud is ultimately shown to be a fake, will you lose your faith? Will that prove that God is also a fraud?

Peace

Tim

 

[bones_IV]

Orogeny:

If the shroud is ultimately shown to be a fake, will you lose your faith? Will that prove that God is also a fraud?

Peace

Tim

Look through the Church documents and you’ll find it truly is Christ himself. No I wouldn’t loose faith. I know Christ exists because of the real presence of the Eucharist. But you know what it is well documented that the blood that came from the Eucharist was in fact real human blood. That was from Venezuala of course. Orogeny are you Catholic?

 

[Orogeny]

bones_IV:

Look through the Church documents and you’ll find it truly is Christ himself.

The shroud of Turin is Christ Himself? The Church teachs that? Please direct me to that teaching.

No I wouldn’t loose faith.

But if it is PROOF, then how would you be able to reconcile false proof with the facts?

I know Christ exists because of the real presence of the Eucharist.

GOOD! That is exactly where you should be looking, not at some relic!

But you know what it is well documented that the blood that came from the Eucharist was in fact real human blood. That was from Venezuala of course.

I will have to ask you for a reference to that, also.

Orogeny are you Catholic?

What do you think?

Peace

Tim

 

[SamCA]

Ortho:

What experiment can one do to detect God? If you can demonstrate God exists through the natural science scientific method, it is surely worth a Nobel and would be the greatest scientific achievement of all time. It would also put God in the realm of the natural.

Well, there’s a couple of scientists looking for any kind of signal encoded in the background microwave radiation left over from the beginning of the universe. If they find anything, that’d be pretty solid evidence of some type of intelligent creator (although not necessarily the one believed in by any particular religion.)

 

[Ortho]

bones_IV:

Really? Is that so? Then how do you explain the Shroud of Turin? If that’s not proof that God exists then I don’t know what is. I tell you, some scientists saw the Shroud of Turin and repented and some obviously rejected it went on their own merry way. The argument that natural sciences simply does not include God is rediculous. God reflects himself through nature. And it is through nature that we can get to know the nature of God himself. Your argument holds no ground.

I don’t explain the shroud of Tourin. Ignorance is no excuse to say God did it.

The belief that God is reflected in nature is a hypothesis. It has yet to be demonstrated by experiment. First, one would have to demonstarte by experiment that God exists. That’s where the Nobel is.

 

[Ortho]

SamCA:

Well, there’s a couple of scientists looking for any kind of signal encoded in the background microwave radiation left over from the beginning of the universe. If they find anything, that’d be pretty solid evidence of some type of intelligent creator (although not necessarily the one believed in by any particular religion.)

No. That would be evidence of background microwave radiation.

 

[amor]

Ortho:

Natural science is the stury of natural phenomena using the scientific method. Natural science is confined to the natural realm. God is not detectable by natural science since God is not in the natural realm.

The teaching of the Church, notwithstanding what your scientists might say, is that God is knowable by the light of natural reason apart from religious revelation. Since only the natural realm is within the grasp of natural reason, this means that God is knowable by looking at the natural realm. The natural realm is also knowable as a work of God.

Catechism

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/50.htm
50* By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works.** But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/39.htm
39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/37.htm
37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.*

What experiment can one do to detect God?

That God cannot be subject to an experiment does not show that God cannot be known by the light of natural reason; it only shows that there is something seriously wrong with your conception of what constitutes natural science. Keep in mind that at one point what we now generally call natural science was, more or less, what was called “natural philosophy” years ago. In fact, I believe that in England it is still called that at least in the honorary titles accorded certain scholars who occupy certain esteemed positions (chairs).

Natural science simply does not include God.

An assertion does not make a fact except for the fact that you made one. That God exists is a fact, a fact knowable by natural reason as well as one knowable by the light of faith, whether you recognize it to be one or not.

 

[Amado_de_Dios]

Ortho:

The belief that God is reflected in nature is a hypothesis. It has yet to be demonstrated by experiment. First, one would have to demonstarte by experiment that God exists. That’s where the Nobel is.

Science is not always empirical, you know. So your assertion that the reflection of God in nature is just a hypothesis is flawed. Also, consider canon 2 of the First Vatican Council, which is infallible:

1. On revelation

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.