Maybe. He has certainly been looking into it, and there are indications he will lean that way. If he does, it will make certain factions within the church very upset. Not to mention the rational people of the world. http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1859760,00.html
That's too bad. And those links entirely misrepresent Coyne's work. He basically argues that "Intelligent" Design is bad science and worst theology, creating an image of God as an engineer rather than, as Coyne always insists (usually in the part that authoritarian Catholic bloggers quote as "...") that God is love, and not a blueprint.
That link misrepresents Coyne's departure. He wasn't dismissed - he retired the post because he's 73, suffering from colon cancer and has recently had to start a new bout of chemotherapy. Also, his comments critical of Schonbrunn came after he stepped down, whereas the article makes it look like cause-and effect. At any rate, if they're looking for someone more amenable José Gabriel Funes probably wasn't the best choice as a replacement - like most Jesuits, he's a scientist through and through. His opinions are invariably the accepted scientific ones, and differ little from those of Coyne. As to the article, I would be very surprised if this happened. Cardinal Ratzinger has long been a champion of religion being kept seperate from our scientific understanding of the world, and has written numerous articles and book emphasising the importance of this. In addition, just two years ago he chaired the International Theological Conference which came out with a statement reaffirming the Catholic Church's commitment to accepted scientific wisdom - in particular (and specifically) in relation to evolution. The most likely explanation for me is that there may be a blurring between the patently nonscientific theory of Intelligent Design, and the long-time Catholic position of Theistic Evolution (where mainstream scientific opinion on the topic is unequivocally accepted, and religion confines itself to the why). If the Vatican came out and endorsed Intelligent Design, not only would I find it disappointing but also extremely shocking. It runs counter to past form of both the Church and also the Pope himself.
I figured the links did misrepresent the facts, as I am reasonably familiar with both--they were just the ones I had. Nonetheless, I always appreciated Coyne (and was Jesuit educated). PapaRatzi is a bit of a kook, but I can't imagine he'd endorse ID.
Not to be a downer, but if there really is a God I'm having trouble seeing Him as totally loving (to put it mildly). Even putting aside man's inhumanity to his fellow man, the very nature of life on this planet is often kill or be killed.
The Vatican has already said ID isn't science. I'm a religious person, but not a fan of the Catholics. When the Pope talks, I tend to not listen.
Odd though, I'm having trouble finding any other articles online about it, outside of the very conservative blogs and "news" sites.
I can see the pope/church backing some form of intelligent design as a religious and naturalistic theory. It is not an unrealistic perspective for those with deep religious convictions to see the work of God around them, acting in mysterious and supernatural ways. Especially in the catholic church with the emphasis on miracles. If the pope sees the work of god in the flight of a sparrow, who am I to complain? But I doubt they would ever pronounce that science/evolution is wrong (morality of certain scientific practices aside). They've been there before and learned their lesson. Catholic scholars know their history better than their science
Not only that, but significant portions of the Catholic hierarchy (the Jesuits being the most notable) are in fact also members of the mainstream scientific community themselves. I cannot see them finding a theological approach that conflicts with modern scientific opinion (or indeed attempts to encroach at all on science's domain) conscienable.
They may be significant in numbers, but even the Jesuits would agree that post-Tom Reese, their power is at an all-time low under Pope Benedict.
Putting on my cynical Catholic hat, one of the biggest frustrations for the Church over the past few decades has been a loss of interest in the church in Europe. The Pope understands that they can't lose generations of Catholics in countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Austria and even Italy. Turning a cold shoulder to the science of evolution for some theory cooked up by American Evangelicals would have those people they are trying to attract leaving skid marks running away from the Church. Just my personal opinion, but it seems to me that the "creators" of the theory of intelligent design were specifically looking for a club to beat back the science of evolution. They WANTED conflict. They WANTED to make people choose. It's really too bad. Going back 25 years, Sister Zepherine taught me the science of evolution -- the how of creation. She also taught us that the process was set in motion by God, the creator -- the why. It wasn't called intelligent design back then, and it wasn't taught in a way that was at odds with legitimate science. It was presented as "this is education. This is faith." We were taught that there was no hypothesis for explaining God, and that one was not required. You HAD to make that leap of faith, which is called belief. It is a shame that in our polarized world that some people have perverted that notion and created conflict where one should not exist. The Catholic church should stick to its guns on this. Give to science what belongs to science. Give to God what belongs to God (okay, so he said "Cesear" but the point is the same.)
But it's not just the Jesuits any more, which is the best thing. The key point that I think is important is that the modern Catholic Church has developed an ingrained culture of accepting science and religion in symbiosis. As people have mentioned, if there's one thing the Church does well it's that it learns from its mistakes - the Galileo fiasco won't happen again. I think this is best exemplified by looking at the current Pope, who is about as conservative as they come, and even his history of championing the cause of science. The prevailing view of the modern Church - not just the Jesuits - is that science is an important tool to help us understand our world, and theology's realm is that which is beyond science's competence. It is a theological reality which makes sense to the rational minded.
This is an absolutely fantastic post. Sister Zepherine would be proud. The forced choice, the polarization - it does not mesh at all with the greater Catholic theological tradition of intelligent discussion and debate. The "unholy" alliance between conservative Catholics and conservative evangelicals (presumably to curtail those schismatic Americans and secularized Europeans) is brought to light by this debate.
Sister Zepherine was a little batshit crazy in other ways, but I think you are right. She knew her science. The conservative Catholic thing is a little troubling in the same way. When I was a kid, there were those Catholics who wanted mass in Latin and were big "law and order" follow the rules types, and then there were the champions of the "family mass" with people sitting in circles playing acoustic guitars and focusing on the warm and fuzzy Jesus as Hippie types. There was no conflict. Each group kind of accepted that the other existed and had a right to practice their faith as they saw fit. Now, I think there really is a conflict. A sense that "my way is the right way." It's a shame.
Intelligent Design is a crappy theory. As I understand it, you can summarise ID as follows: "If you found a watch on the beach, you would know that someone made it and left it there, as it is far too complex to have been formed randomly. Life is more complex than a watch, and thus must have been created and placed on earth." Rotovirus, Hookworms and Bot flies are all forms of life which must therefore have been deliberately created. The creator took the time to engineer lifeforms which could only survive by causing injury to other beings. Nice!