Thu 19 Jan 2006
So the Vatican today has issued a satement discouraging the teaching of the “Intelligent Design” instead of or along side evolutionry theory as currently understood. This theory, as I understand it, developed as an honest and honourable attempt to address some of the current deficiencies in what developed from the Darwinian school.
Concern over the level of complexity, on the phenotype level but more tellingly the very genes between two mutations in the same evolutionary change led to the questioning of standard Darwinism.
The worst thing to happen to this effort to adapt or replace an existing scientific paradigm (if it needed to be replaced, I am not saying it does)was that it was adopted by the American religious establishment. Nothing destroys credibility like being supported by the right wing religious lobby. Soon all the public heard was intelligent design paired with scary, ignorant, morally questionable groups with deep pockets, political connections and the sheep like aquiesance of much of the American Public. (phew)
And now this announcement by the author of the opinion, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna. He lambasted the American treatment of the issue,
This isn’t how science is done . If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it’s not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science.
The article does mention that the Pope “criticized those who in the name of science say (the world’s) creation was without direction or order” but I don’t expect much from the current Bishop of Rome. The apparent difference of opinion (one being infallable apparantly) was a surprise in a way but the Catholic Church has long been out of the science business, focussing on the holy smoke and acting as a moral anchor for the credulous.
See the link for the full text. I have to say I am conflicted on this issue. Enlighten me?
What exactly are you conflicted about? I figure the Catholic church is just making a very smart PR move in detaching itself from the embarrassment that is the US media obsession with Intelligent Design. Regardless of how “scientific” Intelligent Design’s theories might be, the media makes it look like science classes teaching it instead of evolution would consist of a single class where the teacher says “God did all this” and then everyone goes home. I don’t think the church had any other choice in the matter.
But I don’t think they’re being pro-Darwin or anti-ID or anything, they’re just being anti-stupid-science-class. Which is a good way to be. Maybe someone will tell some of those crazy fundamentalists in the US to take a flying you-know and listen to the Vatican this one time.
This one time, exactly. The conflict with this one media event stems from a recent conflict I have had with ID. I did not knw the backstory and wrote the whole wax ball off as Falliwell’s follies. Once I learned about the inabitlity of standard evolutionary biology to account for complexity in specific genetic evolutionary changes, I was surprised. More work seemed needed. An initial answer was pre-fishcar ID. Then, this could easily have meant just an intelligence innate in the cell. I was schooled by my little sis who studies thus in Uni.
The current specific conflict relates to my intense desire to see the Catholic church err in all things and the proximity of the subject to ID.
What to do?
Will said,
Scientifically speaking, this is a really important point. if you are debating the content of ID rather than the politics of it, this must be looked at, because it is one of the current areas of study by ID molecular biologists. My personal beliefs tell me that this ID/evolution/creation thing will never be resolved, but my scientific mind holds out for another leap in molecular biology related to the packaging of DNA, and the different levels of information storage in the nucleus. But even given that next likely advance, the question remains - how did the different levels of storage come to be?
This is the question that (as far as I know it) legit ID scientists are looking into. Their question is not, “How does God make life?” but “Given that the complex microbiological machinery present in life today is not yet explainable through evolutionary theory, what possible other operators may be involved?” This is a question that follows the scientific method - it observes a condition, examines it, and tests a hypothesis about its cause.
But back to the Catholic church - good for them. I think it is probably best that until ID has some more science behind it, it is portrayed as no more than a developing theory. And until we know evolution to be a completely verified, unified theory (like, say, gravity), we should continue to present it to students as such - this is what we suspect, and this is why…
Will was so obscure in that part that you quoted that he didn’t even know what he was talking about. “Fishcar ID? What the hell?”
Then we got it, and we laughed and laughed …
Classic will… I have to say, I was wondering myself - I only just got it now. There needs to be an award for this kind of inventive use of language for humour…. and will should get it.
I’m also surprised at your conflict in this issue. I’m happy to keep intelligent design in Sunday School, and out of science class.
[...] It’s sad when good causes get hijacked by insane interest groups. One example, according to moderate supporters, is Intelligent Design, which is now a concept inseparable for most from insular, fanatical evangelical Christian sects. [...]
Sadly, intelligent design was not an attempt to address the deficiencies in Darwinian biology… it was a very deliberate attempt to sneak creationist principles into the science classroom. Every court case, for example, tht has ruled on the issue, has found that ID was created by frustrated creationists angry that a biblical account of life was being taught in class.
Yes , Your point is correct but you have missd the point of the article. I believe ther is no god and no spiritual force. The origins of what is now called intelligent design were without influence from religious principles. Those groups made it mainstream and destroyed all credibility. Every court case has been dismissed because it is framed in a god v gvt kind of way with religious lobbies writing the checks. THe last to be thown out cited the deception of the proponents in that they claimed to be religiously neutral and this was shown to be a lie and the court was offended. Perception counts but the shame is the potential for a healthy development in the field of biology.