Perhaps the new Pope isn’t all bad after all. The Vatican just issued a strong defence of Darwin and evolutionary science, effectively completely repudiating ID proponents who argue based on the Biblical account of Genesis.
Apologies for the short diary, but I don’t think there’s really much relevant analysis here.
And they aren’t being subtle about it, either. Cardinal Poupard’s words can’t be interpreted two ways, and really can’t be spun. He’s very strongly objecting to any kind of a scientific or literalist reading of Genesis
Of course, the news agencies are still trying to preserve the controversy. I expect we’ll see more claims like the one at the end of the linked article, saying that the Vatican agrees with ID proponents about the necessity of an intelligent designer in principle. Actually reading their words, however, makes it very clear that this isn’t so. To them, creator-less science is perfectly adequate for explaining how the world works.
While I don’t expect this to actually quiet down the ID crusaders in the USA, this does give progressives some ammo. It’s very prominent, inarguable evidence that science and religion are not necessarily hostile to each other, and that a scientific, humanistic, sectarian government or world-view does not necessarily have to be hostile to religion.
While it’s hard to judge the details from the short story you linked to, this is a good sign that at least this part of what’s been the mainstream Catholic position at least since Vatican II will be allowed to stand despite a drift to the right in other areas.
What you and the story indicated was the same interpretation I was taught in Catholic high school in the mid 1970’s: Genesis is true as a religious myth; evolution is true as a scientific mechanism. The former answers “why,” the latter “how.”
Thanks for bringing this to the community’s attention.
🙂
I imagine there will be dozens of diaries about it in a day or two.
And I do feel compelled to note that the Vatican’s position on sex is still disgusting.
However, it’s good that the Catholic Church is scientifically consistent about this. I just wish they’d extend that consistency to other areas.
As one who was taught about Darwin and how evolution by natural selection works by a nun in a Catholic school back in the early 60’s, the fundies, “You either believe in God or you believe in evolution!” just drives me nuts.
As a biology prof who has to deal with the results of their propaganda in the classroom, it drives me even nutser.
One thing that especially enrages me is how the ID’ers have hidden their real message from the average person (certain structures are too complex to have arisen by natural selection, ergo, evolution by natural selection could not have happened and therefore did not happen).
I spent some time on this in one of my classes last Spring. At the beginning of class almost all of my students said that they believed in intelligent design. When I explored further what they meant by that, they explained a view of evolution that I as an atheist biologist would have no quarrel with, but, they added, they believed that there was a Creator who put all of this in motion, or that evolution by natural selection was how God created living things and all of their diversity.
As I said, I’m an atheist, but I have no problem with this. Many excellent biologists have the same worldview.
When we’re weeping and wailing about how stupid the American people are and how many believe in (gasp!) Intelligent Design, keep in mind that many of these folks are not rejecting Darwin at all – but they believe in God the Creator – and they think that accepting evolution and believing in a Creator equals “Intelligent Design” so they describe themselves as believing in Intelligent Design.
(And btw, those “too complex” arguments by the ID’ers about bacterial flagella and whatnot? My non-science majors in a community college were able to shoot them down in no time flat, with no help from me. Sample comment: “Do these idiots know anything about genes and how they work?” Warmed the cockles of my heart, it did.)
Precisely. It’s another conservative propaganda issue. Like pro-choice/pro-life. Most of America – a vast majority – is pro-choice. Yet because of the way Republicans have harped on the issue over the past ten years, they self-id as pro-life. The same goes for liberalism in general. Most are liberal, but self-id as conservative because they’ve been told Liberal Bad, Conservative Good!
The reason they hide what they are really saying – the pseudosientific nonsense part of it – is that their real goal is to further a political agenda. And part of that is to undermine the teaching of evolution. See their “Wedge Strategy.”
What they want is for their argument, evolution could not have happened therefore it did not happen to be taught in schools. But the average person doesn’t know this. They think that “teaching ID” means teaching evolutionary theory just like I do now, but letting teachers add, sort of as a postscript – you know, some people think that God put all this in motion – and what could be the harm in that? So they go along with the “Let’s teach ID” movement.
All but one of my students accepted evolution by natural selection as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on our planet and wanted it taught to students. They want real science taught. When I told them that the ID proponents want to do is to undermine the teaching of evolution, to discredit is as a scientific explanation, they were shocked and angry. And, interestingly, they launched into an attack on “the media” for not conveying the real story behind the ID movement and its real agenda.
I suspect that the problem is political: The ID movement is an almost exclusively american ideology, with american backing (Discovery Institute), american goals (i.e., visions of christianity modeled on american economic values) and american forms of proselytism (TV evangilism, polls, etc). The hierarchy of the church probably feels very threatened by this new influence. Austrian Cardinal Schonborn’s recent pronouncements against Darwin are believed to have been the direct result of lobbying by the Discovery Institute.
In the end, the church is willing to live with the long established compromise with deism.
Better the devil you know….
Disclaimer: I’m an atheist (actually no, I am a theoclast: Belief in God is immoral)
Oh. That explains a lot, I think.
And pretty insulting that you have lumped Catholics together with the Baptists.
BREAKING: John Doe no longer beats his wife!
Old news? The article was posted on November 7th. If 24 to 36 hours ago is “old news”, I weep for your attention span.
And I have no clue what the Galapagos you’re talking about in your actual post. I can’t see any place where I conflate the Catholics and Baptists. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten me?