Vatican rejects Intelligent Design

[Josh]

Oh, goodness. Rome's done rejected biblical creationism.

[Vlad!]

Science is primarily concerned with empiricism, and there is little empirical evidence that any worldview can offer to the question of origins. I don't think that either evolution or creation belong in a science class because neither really make any practical difference. Whether the world is like this because of successive mutations interpreted through the lens of natural selection or through divine creation doesn't matter--or perhaps shouldn't matter--to science.  

[bloop]

Merely stating that something does not rise to the level of science is not tantamount to rejecting a divine creation, nor does evolutionary theory do so in itself.  I don't see a real problem with this one.

As to Vlad's point, I can see where being a practical person would make one think that way, but the pure science of today becomes applied tomorrow.  We simply can't pretend to know the potential benefits from attempting to answer these kinds of questions.

[BennieM]

"Vatican says Intelligent Design is not science" does not mean even mean "Vatican says Evolution is its Creed", let alone does it mean "Vatican Rejects God as Creator".

Why is it that when the Vatican (which I do not believe in) issues any statement, people on this phorum take it way out of context? This wasn't that hard to understand.    

[Josh]

My problem here is threefold.

First, the Vatican is not a group of scientists. It is an ecclesial body. As such, it really isn't there place to make this kind of comment; the Bible gives guidelines for what the church is to do-- what its responsibilities are and are not-- and, as far as I can tell, deciding what is and isn't science doesn't fall under the categorey of ecclesial responsibility. Which is not to say that individual Christians, and, to a certain extent, the church itself, should not be involved in scientific debate. This just strikes me as the church overstepping its role.

Second, as Vlad! pointed out, macroevolution is no more scientific than creationism. Neither of them can be replicated in a lab setting. Thus, I find it bothersome that the Catholic faith would make this kind of a statement without also acknowleding the limitations of Darwinian theory. I'm not saying that the Vatican accepts macroevolution per se, but I do think they're being less than transparent on the issue.

Third, I simply question the prudence of criticizing creationism in the public forum this way. It may not be scientific, but it is also not in any way contradicted by science-- something that this article also seems to leave unmentioned. What kind of witness is this to the secular world, I wonder-- and what does it suggest about the Roman doctrine of Scripture?

[Vlad!]

Why is it that when the Vatican (which I do not believe in) issues any statement, people on this phorum take it way out of context? This wasn't that hard to understand.  

You don't believe in the Vatican? You can go to Italy and see it with your own eyes

I don't think we were taking it out of context (OK, maybe "Rome rejects Biblical creationism" is a little out of context). I also don't think censure of the Vatican's action at this point is uncalled-for; as Josh points out, the Vatican is overstepping both its bounds as a church body and the bounds of common sense.

As to Vlad's point, I can see where being a practical person would make one think that way, but the pure science of today becomes applied tomorrow. We simply can't pretend to know the potential benefits from attempting to answer these kinds of questions.

I didn't mean that we should ignore the issue entirely. I just think that either teaching kids that crocodiles and ostriches have a common ancestor OR teaching them that God created both as separate entities is not going to help them scientifically at all. I don't think that unverifiable history belongs in a science class.  

[bloop]

It may not be so strong as to be verified fully in a lab, but evolutionary theory isn't so weak as some in the ID camp would like you to believe, and I'll just leave it at that.  ID itself, of course, doesn't even necessarily need to be at odds with macroevolution, but one is clearly still in the realm of philosophy.  It simply needs to quantify it's findings better and get them into a reputable scientific journal to be taken terribly seriously by the appropriate communities.

Secondly, I do think that it is their place to comment on things that their members may know something about.  While the faith itself needn't teach scientific principles, members of that faith, no doubt, are a part of that community and should be free to speak of these kinds of current events.  It doesn't have the same kind of authority as a papal bull, it seems to me, so I don't really see the harm in repudiating some of those who equate their view of Creationism with being the only one.  Different churches have their own magazines where they often write things that are at odds with this particular article.  For once, I'm kind of glad to see an article that doesn't say "scientific thought is wrong because Genesis 1 says so", in so many words.

In any event, I'm still not seeing any kind of severe problem with the statement, and I certainly don't see an abandonment of divine creation.

[BennieM]

First, the Vatican is not a group of scientists. It is an ecclesial body. As such, it really isn't there place to make this kind of comment...

That something is not science? Of course they can say that. It's not hard to understand that Intelligent Design is not science. It's not as if they're telling you how to do good science. They're just telling you that something isn't science, when it obviously isn't.

This just strikes me as the church overstepping its role.

If by 'the church' you mean 'the clergy', then I can see where you're coming from. But I think you're taking it a bit too far. Surely a clergyman, as a limited type of philosopher, can tell the division between disciplines? He or she may not be qualified to tell you how to conduct those disciplines. But he or she can probably differentiate between them.

And I don't see much of a problem in making that distinction clear to the rest of the population, to people who don't know how to make those distinctions.

Do not learned men and women, especially those learned in philosophy and theology, have the ability to distinguish disciplines? Do we really say that only a scientist can tell you "X is not science"? Of course, only a scientist can best tell you a definition of science. And only a scientist is really a scientist. But surely certain other professions have the capacity to tell what is not science?

Second, as Vlad! pointed out, macroevolution is no more scientific than creationism. Neither of them can be replicated in a lab setting.

As someone who works towards publishing in scientific journals and presenting at scientific conferences, that limited definition of 'science' worries me. Are all computational scientists not scientists? Apparently I am not a scientist. What I model is certainly scientific (by the definition of anyone within that community). But I'll be long dead before it can be properly 'replicated in a lab setting'. In fact, I don't think it ever will be so replicated, because of the assumptions it employs. In fact, I don't think my own theories, which are just stepping stones to something better, will be or can be 'replicated in a lab setting'. They are too simple, with too many assumptions. But they are necessary scientific stepping stones.

I think your theory of science is too... eighteenth century?

[bloop]

Next, you're all going to tell me that Gregor Mendel was overstepping his role as a member of the clergy.  Scientists of the cloth have a prominent place in science, historically, if you care to look into it.

[Vlad!]

bloop, I never said that clergy cannot be scientists as well. Mendel performed experiments to verify his claims, and thus was the model scientist.

"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.

Intelligent design is as much of a science as evolution is, not that this is saying a whole lot. Both are attempts to retrofit theories to facts, in that we look at the end product (living creatures as they exist now) and attempt to reason about how this product may have come about. This is the realm of philosophy or history, but not science. Taking archeological evidince and attempting to explain it is slightly more scientific because it deals with two known quanta and extrapolates the sequence of events between the two, but minus conclusive evidence in support of one side (for example, the discovery of clear transitional forms) it remains unconclusive.

Now, to avoid argument due to miscommunication, it may be more accurate to say "evolution is not fact" then "evolution is not science". One can make a science out of most anything, and there are a number of instances in science where we say "we aren't sure right now why this happens, but here are some ideas". There's nothing wrong with this, and when presented in this manner evolution is certainly just as viable as any other theory, academically speaking. The problem comes with the presentation of evolution as fact and then using that as a foundation to teach so many more things that, if it turns out evolution is false, will crumble along with it.

Are all computational scientists not scientists?

For the record, computer science deals primarily with deterministic phenomina and thus fits even Josh's stringent definition of science. I think what Josh means is not "must be reproduced in a lab" so much as "must be verifiable". Astronomers, for instance, cannot 'reproduce' any of their results on star and planet formation in a lab, but nonetheless they can provide evidence from observations of nebulae and young solar systems to support their theories.

[bloop]

Intelligent design is as much of a science as evolution is, not that this is saying a whole lot.

Really?  Where are its peer-reviewed journal articles?  I'll give you that evolutionary theory relies heavily on inference, but that doesn't imply that it is on the same level in scientific circles as ID, and there is a good reason for that.  The credible, published research into ID just isn't there at this point.  That doesn't mean it will never be, and it may eventually offer an honest challenge some of the assertions made by evolutionary scientists (but not nearly enough to toss out the theory in the very near future), but evolutionary theory, by contrast, has enough to fill volumes in support of its assertion.  I'll also give you that the applications of the theory are applications of microevolution, but having no applications now doesn't mean they will never exist (my own field, math, has seen enough of what was once pure mathematics finding a practical application).  

For me, it's a question of ID's current place in scientific throught, and regarding that, the Vatican seems to have voiced a view that is overwhelmingly in the majority in the scientific community.  I guess I'm willing to trust scientists on what is science over a computer scientist, an English lit major, or myself for that matter.  I don't have much of a problem with the Vatican going a little against the fundamentalist grain, as it were, because it seems to me that they've been making fools of themselves at least since Darwin wrote "Origin . . . ", if not before that.

But, ignoring the scientific debate itself, the thread itself was overstated.  The statement made in the article definitely does not represent abandoning creationism.  It merely doesn't single out American fundamentalist 7-day Creationism as the only way to interpret Genesis.

[Josh]

Re: Church officials (i.e., clergymen, in the Catholic faith) and science-- my point is NOT that a Christian cannot be a good scientist-- or even that a priest or a pastor cannot be a good scientist. My own pastor received a PhD in ceramic engineering before being called to the ministry. My point is that it isn't a priest or pastor's place to make that kind of statement in their capacity as a representative of the visible church. Again, the governing body of the church has certain duties, and deciding what is and isn't science isn't one of them. It's a similar idea as that of the separation of church and state-- the church has certain functions, the government has certain functions, and science has certain functions. All of these functions are laid out by God, and overstepping one's place is, um, wrong.

[BennieM]

For the record, computer science deals primarily with deterministic phenomina and thus fits even Josh's stringent definition of science.

I meant computational physicists and chemists and astronomers and biologists.

I think what Josh means is not "must be reproduced in a lab" so much as "must be verifiable". Astronomers, for instance, cannot 'reproduce' any of their results on star and planet formation in a lab, but nonetheless they can provide evidence from observations of nebulae and young solar systems to support their theories.

Right, but even if we allow this extension, that is quite a different thing, from the inside. Checking your results from less strict evidence is different from setting up an experiment where you can try to control as much as you need. It's so very different that any idea of science which does not openly allow it is either (1) schismatic from within or (2) not fully understood from without.

Not a big point. But it does worry me when nonscientists try to tell us the entirety how to do our job. If nonscientists would stick to what the Vatican is doing, and enforce the barest notions of the boundaries as understood by theology and philosophy, now that would be good! Please, if you're a scientist, do not define everything science is or ought to be. But by all means make obvious the obvious divisions of discipline--if you know them.

My point is that it isn't a priest or pastor's place to make that kind of statement in their capacity as a representative of the visible church.

The Vatican makes its statements as theologians, not strictly as 'priests and pastors'. As I have said, I think theologians are (by their training) the type of people who can (sometimes) tell the distinction between disciplines. It's not as if they are telling you what is good science, just what is not under the pale of science itself.

Again, the governing body of the church has certain duties, and deciding what is and isn't science isn't one of them.

They are not deciding what is science. They are sure, based upon their limited capacity as philosophers and theologians, that certain efforts (practically by their own admission) are not science.

It's a similar idea as that of the separation of church and state-- the church has certain functions, the government has certain functions, and science has certain functions. All of these functions are laid out by God, and overstepping one's place is, um, wrong.

The Clergy (which is not the Church, thank God) are not trying to do science or state. They are trying to be theologians. Theologians (if they are decent theologians) ought to be able to tell you that intelligent design is not science, as defined by any practising scientist.  They are only being theologians. I assume the Clergy are, in your philosophy, allowed to be theologians?