"Intelligent" Design not Science

Miakal

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.


The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion.

A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.

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."

EVOLUTION CONFUSION
Confusion about the Catholic view of evolution arose last year when both the newly elected Pope Benedict and his former student, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, said humans were part of an intelligent project designed by God.

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." This triggered a wave of "Vatican rejects Darwin" headlines and attacks from scientists, Catholics among them, who argued that had been proved man evolved from lower beings.

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."

The Church, which has never rejected evolution, teaches that God created the world and the natural laws by which life developed. Even its best-known dissident, Swiss theologian Hans Kueng, echoed this in a recent book in Germany.

Schoenborn said he spoke up because he shared Benedict's concern, stated just before his election last April, that a "dictatorship of relativism" was trying to deny God's existence.

TENET OF FAITH
Pennsylvania Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design was a version of creationism, the belief that God made the world in six days as told in the Bible, and thus could not be taught without violating a ban on teaching religion in public schools.

It was not science, despite claims by its backers, he said.

This literal reading of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is a tenet of faith for evangelical Protestants, a group that has become politically influential in the United States.

Many U.S. Catholics may agree with evangelicals politically, but the Church does not share their theology on this point. Intelligent design has few supporters outside the United States.

While not an official document, the article in L'Osservatore Romano had to be vetted in advance to reflect Vatican thinking.

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute -- the main think tank of the ID movement -- said on its website that reading the Osservatore article that way amounted to an attempt "to put words in the Vatican's mouth."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

CREDIT: Yahoo!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

Good thing I am not Catholic and this means nothing to me.

Miakal

Yeah, I knew you'd say that.

But it's hard to deny that this isn't going to hurt support for ID. When the largest and most powerful Christian organization says it's no good it's bound to dwindle the amount of supporters.

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

It doesn't really matter. It might be a little blow. It is definitely not good for it. But the U.S. is definitely in a Conservative swing at the moment. The Supreme Court is definitely in a shake up right now, and I think ultimately that we will see the most Conservative Supreme Court in history. Some things are going to change I think.....and soon. Mark my words. :cool2:

Miakal

Yeah, but how have past decisions regarding religion been handled by the more Conservative members of the Supreme Court? And Alito and Roberts are less conservative then them.

The belief that abortion will be overturned or that prayer will be put into school because of the change-up in the Supreme Court is just fantasy and something that Conservatives in congress and in the current Administration want you to believe so you continue voting for them. Look at the past records and you'll see that not much will change, not for quite a long time anyway.

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

Why are the democrats fighting so hard against Judge Alito then? There is a reason. Just wait and see what happens. I wouldn't be surprised to see a national ban on partial birth abortion by the time President Bush leaves office.

Miakal

Alito tends to be pro business and anti-minority. But he's not going to be the most conservative member in the Supreme Court and it's unlikely he's going to overturn much of anything.

The reason the Democrats have to fight Alito is because they have to fight over something (it's politics) and obviously they'd prefer a more liberal judge.

I don't think the Supreme Court will touch much on abortion in the next few years. However, I'm sure there will be hindrances placed on it, mostly in regards to privacy with women. I'm not so sure about partial birth abortion, it's not that easy to judge one way or another, but like I said I doubt they even look at any cases regarding it for the next few years.

I will just say this, let's remember that the overwhelming amount of people in this country are pro-choice and that there would be, without a doubt, major political backlash if the Supreme Court made any unwise decisions.

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

I disagree with you about most Americans being pro-choice. I don't think President Bush would have been elected if that were true.

Miakal

President Bush isn't exactly the poster boy for pro-life. In fact, a lot of Christians groups dislike his passive stance. The truth is he has to be passive, that's how he got elected.

Slimdust

Agree