Vatican Scientist Rejects Intelligent Design
I can imagine many to be mildly surprised that the top Vatican scientist (astrologer I guess) emphatically rejected Intelligent Design Theory as science.
This might be a bit of a surprise to some, but when you look at the reasons why it's not hard to fathom precisely what the problems are:In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.
'If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.'
Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.
'God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,' he wrote. 'He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.' Catholic teaching has always held that it really doesn't matter how God created the world. Rather, what is indisputable is that you cannot evolve a soul.
Importantly enough, the idea of intelligent design ultimately isn't a new one - Aquinas argued a version of this as a proof for the existence of God - but rather ID is more of a philosophical, cultural, or perspective for the social sciences. As a scientific theory, what precisely does it prove that holds true to solid scientific thought?
Q and Q notes Charles Krauthammer's swipe at ID:Let's be clear. "Intelligent design" may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological ``theory'' whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge—in this case, evolution—they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science—that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution—or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together? More precisely, how does one argue that the Intelligent Designer is not an alien? More advanced humans? A race of demigods?
I have no problems with the goals of ID per se. Yes, God created the universe, and yet God can be seen in His creation, but a proper study of science shows us how intricate and subtle that creation really is. Clouding up the unknowns and chalking it up to ID doesn't necessarily prove much of anything.
|
 |
Shaun Kenney 
1 Comments:
I'd agree that some scientists extrapolate their findings unnecessarily (e.g. evolution is true, therefore God does not exist - a non sequitur if there ever was one). However, this is where we get into the whole debate as to the philosophical and cultural backgrounds of the scientists themselves and their ability to interpret their findings, scientifically or otherwise.
A good read on the nuptual vs. legal nature of existence? JP II's Fides et Ratio is a good start. Great, great encyclical, and a teriffic extension of the same ideas Aquinas proposed 800 years earlier...
Post a Comment
Home