Catholic Astronomer Takes On the Pope, and Other ID Battles

Right after Pope Benedict XVI essentially affirmed intelligent design (11/10/2005), his court astronomer rejected it.  The Rev. George Coyne, Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, sounded like he was reading the NCSE playbook: “Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be…. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.”  LiveScience, as could be expected after their series against I.D., gave this story prominence.  Coyne continued arguing that the faithful should abandon the concept of a dictator God or designer God creating a Newtonian “clockwork universe” and instead embrace the concept of God as “encouraging parent” using evolution to achieve his ends – allowing, participating and loving, but not intervening.  Evolution News remarked that the news media, picking up on this story, seems more Catholic than the Pope.  Bruce Chapman explained why it is incorrect to claim Coyne’s view represents the official Vatican position.
    The contest between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design still shows no sign of abating.  Here are some other recent developments:

• Bio-Advocacy:  The journal BioScience contained two articles and an editorial attacking intelligent design and strategizing ways to defeat it in science classrooms (see 11/01/2005 entry for one of the articles).
• Cornell Students vs. Their President:  The senior editor of the Cornell Sun responded to the President’s anti-ID speech by reporting about the ID debate on campus, listing faculty members supporting and opposing the new ideas.  Xiaowei Cathy Tang found that it’s not just students, but some “faculty members urged the University and the nation to view I.D. as a valid challenge to some aspects of evolution.”
• Conservatives for Darwin:  CEH readers wrote in about anti-ID articles in the Washington Post by noted conservative columnists George Will and Charles Krauthammer, who pulled no punches with, “Let’s be clear.  Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud.”  He called it “ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God.”  He finds it “more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine” to picture, in the beginning, “a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein” even if it also produced the Kansas State Board of Education, he ended with a smirk.  Jonathan Witt on EvolutionNews claimed all Krauthammer did was knock down a straw man.
• Whose Claptrap?:  Tennesseean Tom Bohs wrote a torrid anti-ID editorial for the Jackson Sun, but his litany of ridicule, straw man tactics and ad hominems might backfire for some readers.  Sample: “If you believe the Earth is flat, well, I have a theory of evolution for you: intelligent design.  This is the pseudo-scientific claptrap some Christian fundamentalists are trying to foist off on society and have taught in our public school biology classes.  Don’t fall for the sales pitch.  It isn’t science.”
• Toe-Dipping in Indiana:  Mary Beth Schneider wrote in the Indianapolis Star about GOP state assemblymen who are testing the waters about intelligent design.  “We were trying to see if this is a hot-button issue for people,” said Bill Friend, Indiana House Majority Leader, and one of 36 Republican legislators who included the issue on a survey.
• UI no ID:  The Tribune reported on over 150 University of Iowa faculty who have signed a statement opposing intelligent design.
• The Sun Will Come Up, Tomorrow:  In a Malaysia newspaper, Dr. Stefan Tan claimed that Darwinism is dying.  He ended, “As one who believes that the universe is not an accident (the probabilities weigh against it), I believe it is a matter of time before macro-evolution will be nailed down in the coffin by an ever-increasing preponderance of evidences now trickling in.  Some might prefer to wait all night for the sun to rise but do we have that much time before we believe?”
• Get It Right, Reporters:  Frustrated at repeated misrepresentations in the media about the Kansas science standards, Evolution News listed the definitions of science in the standards of all 50 states.  The New York Times and other newspapers had claimed that Kansas made a dangerous change to its definition of science by robbing it of “natural explanations” for phenomena; Ker Than in LiveScience accused Kansas of bringing “supernatural explanations” into science, while MSNBC News portrayed it as a “subtle” but “brilliant” tactic to “open the door for divine interventions.”  The record shows that, prior to the vote, Kansas had been the only state embedding methodological naturalism into the definition of science.  The new definition actually is closer to the definition in 40 other states, while 9 states did not even specify a definition.

When you look at who acts cool and rational, and who strives for honesty and accuracy in reporting, and who thinks instead of repeating sound bites, there really is no contest.  That the Darwin Party must resort to constant mudslinging and power plays can only mean one thing: they are running scared.
    As to the Vatican astronomer, we’ll have to wait and see how that battle plays out.  Father Coyne fails to see the contradiction in what he said.  Everything characteristic of the Catholic faith involves God’s actual intervention in the affairs of mankind: the Creation, the Fall, the virgin birth, and the resurrection, to name a few.  The Darwinists want unguided, directionless, purposeless evolution; how can that possibly be reconciled with Catholicism without schizophrenia?  It appears that Coyne is more wedded to his scientific reputation than his faith, and more loyal to Pope Charlie (02/13/2004) than to Pope Benedict.  Press coverage of their disparate views may force a confrontation.  Does it matter?  Only to Catholics, and to Darwinists desperately seeking quotes from religious celebrities to shield their naked materialism.