Galileo and the IDers Who Love Him

[Chicago1871]

Slate: Galileo and the Intelligent Design Wackjobs Who Love Him (http://www.slate.com/id/2135415/?nav=tap3)

In a column late last month in the Catholic Church's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, Italian biologist Fiorenzo Facchini scolded intelligent design advocates for "pretending to do science." It was the Vatican's signal that the church had jumped ship on ID. That will no doubt rankle creationists who hoped for a potential ally in Rome. But there's a bright side for them: The church's rejection could help the ID-ers identify with their favorite scientist, Galileo Galilei.

Yes, that Galileo. In opinion pieces, speeches, and interviews, ID advocates commonly cite the 17th-century Italian astronomer and physicist as a forebear. It's not his views on biology they want a piece of, but rather his plight as a man before his time. "In my opinion, we must train students in the 21st century to do exactly as Galileo did … think outside the box," says William Harris, one of the key players in Kansas' rebellion against evolution last year. In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, leading ID-er Michael Behe calls the idea of a heliocentric universe, proposed by Copernicus and backed by Galileo, a prescient "assault on the senses." So, too, Behe says, will his own work be vindicated. Last fall, an interviewer for the British newspaper the Guardian asked Behe if the criticism of ID he faces brings Galileo to mind. The self-appointed science rebel had a simple answer: "Yeah. In a way it's flattery."

[tomwilhelm]

Galileo spins in his grave.

Why do these people continue to get media coverage?

ID is not science in any way shape or form... End of story.

[Dr. Wankler]

I would point out to the author of the Slate article that, when it says, "the Vatican jumped ship on ID," the article mistakenly implies that the Vatican supported ID at one time, which is inaccurate. I'm with the guy everywhere else, but not here.

[dj43]

Though I am not a Catholic, I thought I had a decent understanding of the major tenants of the faith, but the statement that the Vatican "has jumped ship on ID" raises some questions for me:

Does the Vatican hold a view of the origin of life that is quite different from ID?

Do they not hold to the Genesis story? If not, what do they do with the 500+ biblical references to the "Creator?"

There is a pretty straight line from the current church back to Peter and Christ's statement about the "rock of the church." And Jesus mentioned the "Creator" Himself many times.

If there is no Creator, then with whom will the Mother Mary intercede?

IMV, the author's implication, if correct, puts the Vatican on a VERY steep and slippery slope. I think the Slate author has it wrong.

Anyone with some answers to my questions?

[bojendyk]

Anyone with some answers to my questions?

I was raised Catholic and largely attended Catholic/Jesuit schools, and teachers at every step of my education believed that the creation story was a myth/metaphor. The closest thing to ID taught was that the creation story doesn't describe literal days, thus allowing for the possibility that billions of years passed between the creation of the animals and the creation of humans.

The biology classes in high school taught evolution and not creationism.

I have no idea whether this reflects Vatican opinion on the matter, but everything I've read indicates that the Catholic church is pro-Darwin.

[MikeLastort2]

I went to Catholic school and the theory of evolution was taught as scientific fact in biology class. That biology class was taught by an ordained Roman Catholic nun.

Catholic doctrine views the story of Biblical creation in Genesis as an allegory, not as literal fact.

[Chicago1871]

Though I am not a Catholic, I thought I had a decent understanding of the major tenants of the faith, but the statement that the Vatican "has jumped ship on ID" raises some questions for me:
The phrasing isn't as it should be, but I think what the author meant was more along the lines of distancing themselves from the "science" of ID.

[Dr. Wankler]

Do they not hold to the Genesis story? If not, what do they do with the 500+ biblical references to the "Creator?"

Sure they do. They just don't treat Genesis as a literal description of how it went down. So of course they view God as the Creator. But the Church also sees intelligent design as fake science, and not especially good theology.

Personally, I think it's bad theology for a couple of reasons. One, ID basically assumes that whatever science doesn't (yet) explain, we can say, "God will cover that." Then (and this is why I think ID is anti-science), you wind up with the same form of Chrisianism that was dying a deserved death in the 19th century, wherein each scientific breakthrough must be rejected for treading on God's turf, or religion must be rejected because it's timeless truth has been shown to be timeless.

The second reason it's bad theology in my opinion, is that it's hard to tell someone whose faith is being tested by, say, the death of a child, that it's all part of God's plan. But you're pretty much left with that when you premise that God's intelligent design includes cancer cells that occasionally take hold in the bodies of infants.

[dj43]

Thanks for the responses. Work calls. I'll get back to this tonight.

[bojendyk]

The closest thing to ID taught was that the creation story doesn't describe literal days, thus allowing for the possibility that billions of years passed between the creation of the animals and the creation of humans.

I should add that this particular view wasn't taught in science classes. I simply remember my eighth grade teacher saying this, likely as a means of reconciling the Biblical creation story with what we were being taugh in the science classroom across the hall.

Also, except for an attempt to rattle one of our teachers that involved this subject, I don't remember there being a controversy about evolution.

[Metroweenie]

Though I am not a Catholic, I thought I had a decent understanding of the major tenants of the faith, but the statement that the Vatican "has jumped ship on ID" raises some questions for me:

Does the Vatican hold a view of the origin of life that is quite different from ID?
Do they not hold to the Genesis story? The first account of creation or the completely contradictory second one?

If not, what do they do with the 500+ biblical references to the "Creator?"


There is a pretty straight line from the current church back to Peter and Christ's statement about the "rock of the church." And Jesus mentioned the "Creator" Himself many times.

Catholics believe the Bible is divinely inspired, not divinely written. Regardless, that is a reference to the creation story.

[MikeLastort2]

Thanks for the responses. Work calls. I'll get back to this tonight.

If you do return to this thread, please refrain from bashing Roman Catholic doctrine.

[dj43]

The first account of creation or the completely contradictory second one?

Please explain this. What are the contradictory statements that you see?

[dj43]

Sure they do. They just don't treat Genesis as a literal description of how it went down. So of course they view God as the Creator. But the Church also sees intelligent design as fake science, and not especially good theology.

So I can understand this, please explain the difference between viewing God as the Creator and ID?

Not a trick question. I just have observed that there is a very wide range of definitions and rather than wander around all over the matter, I would like to pin it down a little closer.

[GringoTex]

So I can understand this, please explain the difference between viewing God as the Creator and ID?


God as Creator is Biblical. ID is speculative crap that is anti-Science and unBiblical.

[christopher d]

Though I am not a Catholic, I thought I had a decent understanding of the major tenants of the faith, but the statement that the Vatican "has jumped ship on ID" raises some questions for me:

Does the Vatican hold a view of the origin of life that is quite different from ID?

Do they not hold to the Genesis story? If not, what do they do with the 500+ biblical references to the "Creator?"

There is a pretty straight line from the current church back to Peter and Christ's statement about the "rock of the church." And Jesus mentioned the "Creator" Himself many times.

If there is no Creator, then with whom will the Mother Mary intercede?

IMV, the author's implication, if correct, puts the Vatican on a VERY steep and slippery slope. I think the Slate author has it wrong.

Anyone with some answers to my questions?Try this on for size:

As a Pagan, the more I learn about science, the closer to the Creatrix I feel/become, and the more wonderous the World around me becomes. Not because I believe She had a plan, set a few things in motion, et voilà, Planet Earth. But rather because I believe She is in a constant process of creation and destruction, and that the World She built is far too complex for me to ever fully understand. I also know that any boundaries or explanations I put around Her creation are mythological, because I really don't know how it all works.

But, the closer that Science gets to figuring out details of the Universe, the more I know about the inner workings of Creation. I read A Brief History of the Universe as a religous text, and it opened up a whole new set of mysteries. As many questions as Hawking answered, he was left with twice as many questions.

The "Big Bang" is the most probable of the Creation explanations available to Science today, but even that is just theory. Science is the process by which folks dedicate their lives to asking questions and figuring out the best answers they can through logic. As a religious person, one who worships Creation Herself, I can use what Science provides to give me a deeper connection with Creation, and a deeper reverence for the mysteries inherent in the process, but until they've completely decoded what happened, what keeps happening, and how, I'm left with myths. Myths work very well for me. They may or may not for you.

[spejic]

Please explain this. What are the contradictory statements that you see?Were animals made before or after man? How long did creation take?

[DJPoopypants]

So I can understand this, please explain the difference between viewing God as the Creator and ID?


My old catholic teachers definitely felt that God was the creator. Some priests I've talked to have said that God's ways are mysterious, and that there are many ways he could have 'created' things, and certainly one should not rule out evolution as his way of creating and changing things. In their view, science is a way of finding out the mysteries God has left us.

They also are not overly concerned that they may have come from monkeys, or with the details of God's creation, because, well, there's a heckuva lot more to their religious beliefs that some tiny stupid pseudoargument which they know better than to stick their nose into because they don't claim to know all the answers.

Maybe that's the key difference between them and ID.

[DJPoopypants]

Were animals made before or after man? How long did creation take?

hey - don't make me take the creationists' side and bring up the key underlying flaw of evolutionary biology.

Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

Eh? Eh? Answer that, Mr Science! Or, just like Darwin, are you too chicken?

[DoctorD]

hey - don't make me take the creationists' side and bring up the key underlying flaw of evolutionary biology.

Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

Eh? Eh? Answer that, Mr Science! Or, just like Darwin, are you too chicken?

I think he was referring to the first and second creation stories as recorded in Genesis and how they are somewhat contradictory.