>>irony of ironies the Vatican’s 2006 chief astronomer Fr. George Coyne admits<<

I do not see what is the irony in here. From its very beginning, the “Intelligent Design” movement never had the Vatican support (the Viennese Archbishop Schönborn’s unfortunate 2005 article in the NYT notwithstanding), although until mid last century, I admit, there was a confusion - not only among Catholics - between the scientific theory (theories) of evolution and the ideology of evolutionism with its metaphysical presuppositions.

After all, in 1990, when the Discovery Institute (that, among other things, fooled Schönborn into writing his controversial NYT article) was founded, Teilhard de Chardin was already widely understood and tolerated, if not accepted, by the Church. [During his August 2006 “Studienkreis” meeting with former students, Benedict XVI took upon himself the uneasy task of defending his personal friend Schönborn without giving the impression of meddling in scientific theories where he does not have the necessary qualifications.]

Thanks HarryG.

Relda,

<<Sadly, it is really quite childish to create confusion between the scientific plane and the philosophical or religious.>>

I couldn't possibly agree more!

As I have said to Dan a couple of times before, classifying evolution (the mere study of the diversity of life) as some sort of a religion, is nothing more than a sad attempt by Creationists to drag the theory of evolution, and those who accept it, down to the same sorry fundamentalist level of Creationists.

But if someone really believes this, then that not only demonstrates a blatant ignorance of evolution and science in general, but is a clear and unmistakable sign of a mind with a very poor grasp of reality.

Anyway... A couple of corrections:

I meant Stephen Hawking, not Stephen Hawkins.

And when I said:
"Nor do they want to give such a crackpot idea any more acknowledgment than it deserves, or validate it in anyway by taking it seriously enough to debate."

I should have actually said:
"Nor do they want to give such a crackpot idea any more acknowledgment than it deserves, or LEGITIMISE it in anyway by taking it seriously enough to debate."

Ironic, George, because in 2005 (NYT) Cardinal Christof Schonborn described evolution as "incompatible" with church teachings. This remark appears clearly unequivocal and certainly prompted three scientists (two of whom were Catholic) to write to Pope Benedict XVI stating, "It is vitally important ... that in these difficult and contentious times the Catholic Church not build a new divide, long ago eradicated, between the scientific method and religious belief." (This is to say they are different but nevertheless, compatible).

One can describe neo-Darwinian theory as an amalgam of genetics, population biology, molecular biology, and evolutionary theory that explains the mechanism of evolution, including natural selection and random chance - but it has nothing to say about whether a divine being may be responsible for the whole thing. Expressing a faith is in no need of qualification but ‘doing’ science has the prerequisite of its proper method. Perhaps one can agree with Schonborn's theology, but not his understanding of science, where he suggests that neo-Darwinian thought rules out a role for a creator – it is merely neutral on this. Ironically, Richard Dawkins holds Schonborn's same view on the ‘no role for the creator’ in evolution – but for reasons that are purely secular.

Relda

It is not as simple as saying that evolution and creation are "compatible". They belong in entirely different domains.
The Genesis creation myths are not primarily about cosmogenesis but about relationships and identity. For much of the last 2000 years the Church has taught, after Genesis, that humanity holds a special place in "creation" and herein lies their problem with evolution. Evolution says that we are not essentially different to other animals and indeed we are very closely related to them having common ancestors and so on. This was an offense to many Church people and many have not yet adjusted to this "new" knowledge. The offense felt by Christians makes this a highly emotive topic which is why Creationists and Intelligent Designers press their case with such vigorous and at times acrimonious "debate".

Evolution says that humans are just another variety of animal. Creationists believe that humans are above the animals, being made "in the image" of God. These two views are, indeed, incompatible. The problem is, of course, that creationists are teaching bad theology as well as bad science... and they wonder why the Church is disappearing from the western world.

Bible stories have long been taught in Sunday School to small children. At first they are taught as if they are true and that has seemed not entirely inappropriate for small children. It is not appropriate, however, to maintain this very simple understanding into adulthood. For such people evolution represents a threat to faith that must be eliminated.

AJ,
You say creationists are a joke. Others on this thread such as Runner as well as many scientists say evolution is laughable. So who decides where the joke is? Perhaps we’ll just have to discuss it. That’s what this discussion forum is about. Praise God for such forums!

Now you claim victory in ‘debunking’ previous arguments in discussions on this issue. When did OLO appoint you as an adjudicator? Wouldn’t the world be a dandy place if we could participate in a debate and also adjudicate the debate on our own behalf? Imagine how the judicial system would operate if some of us were allowed to do that.

You say real scientists don’t debate creationists at risk of legitimising their ideas. I suppose that means that you can’t include yourself as a real scientist, as you seem very keen to enter into debate on the issue.

In reality, scientists have debated the issue, as we both have made reference to above.

Although debating with you, AJ, does pose its challenges. For instance, how am I supposed to respond when you are contradicting yourself so clearly, as you did in consecutive sentences in your Wednesday post above? You even labelled them sentence 1 and sentence 2.

In sentence 1 you say there isn’t much sparsity of transitional fossils between the major groups. Then in sentence 2 you say there are reasons for the lack of such fossils.

Well, which is it? Is there a lack of fossils between the major groups or isn’t there?

You start your post with this sentence addressed to me, “Not one of the points you've made on this thread so far is in anyway accurate.” On Tuesday August 5 I claimed that the earth was spherical and not flat. What do you say to that?

But before you consider your response, can you think carefully whether you really want to enter into debate, because you’ve already said that real scientists don’t enter this debate.

Waterboy,
I’m not sure which creation/evolution debate you read, but the one I referenced, http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3466/ , was certainly conducted on agreed parameters: agreed word limits, submission dates, etc.

You accuse creationists of “laziness”, and resorting to the Bible for evidence. This makes me think that you don’t know the creationist arguments very well. Certainly, creationists start with the Bible as their philosophical and theological base. But after that, their evidence is forged in the same manner as all other scientists, by logic and observation of the material world.

I’m glad you noted that a written message like “HELP” would be meaningless to a non-human or someone unfamiliar with the code. Therein lays the strength of this creationist argument. Humans communicate through a shared code or language. Intelligence is always the source of coded information. Lately scientists are discovering the wonders of the genetic code. A similar coding of DNA is found within and read by the cellular structure of all living things.

You ask, could rabbits change enough to become a new species? Quite possibly. Speciation is a commonly observed phenomenon. If the creation/evolution debate was over speciation, then there wouldn’t be a debate. However speciation (defined by the inability of groups to successfully mate or produce fertile offspring) is usually related to selection of certain genes within the gene pool, or a thinning out or loss of information within the gene pool. But from where did the richness of the gene pool originate?

Creationists believe that a great intelligence beyond our own is the source of this genetic information. This same source of information has communicated to mankind through his Word.

If in your understanding, Christian theology is consistent with the evolution of man from lower life forms, where is this communicated in the Christian revelation?