Afternoon:
11°c
With a single dessert and just two glasses of wine our bill was kept in check - but the effort of doing so was not much fun
Video: Londoner David Haye becomes world champion after defeating 'Beast from the East' who towered almost one foot above him and weighed seven stone more
More...
Pope fails to address 'intelligent design' theory of evolution
Last updated at 15:07pm on 04.09.06
Pope Benedict and his former doctoral students spent a weekend pondering evolution without discussing controversies over intelligent design and creationism raging in the United States.
The three-day closed-door meeting at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome ended as planned without drawing any conclusions but the group plans to publish its discussion papers, said participant Father Joseph Fessio S.J.
Media speculation had said the debate might shift Vatican policy to embrace "intelligent design," which claims to prove scientifically that life could not have simply evolved, or even the "creationist" view that God created the world in six days.
"It wasn't that at all," Fessio, who is provost of Ave Maria University in Florida, said from Rome. The Pope's session with 39 former students was "a meeting of friends with some scholars to discuss an interesting theme".
"We did not really speak much about intelligent design," said Fessio, whose Ignatius Press publishes the Pope's books in English. "In fact, that particular controversy did not arise."
Creationism -- the view that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- was "almost off the radar screen of the people in this group," he added. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally.
Fessio said Benedict took part in the discussions but said nothing different from previous public statements, in which he has recognised evolution as a scientific fact but argued that God ultimately created the world and all life in it.
As the Pope put it at his inaugural Mass after being elected in April 2005, "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God."
Annual get-togethers
Benedict, who taught theology at four German universities before becoming archbishop of Munich and then the Vatican's top doctrinal official, has held these annual get-togethers since the late 1970s. The international group debates in German.
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has long been rejected in the United States by conservative Christians who want to have a Bible-based view of creation taught in public schools, where the church-state separation bars the teaching of religion.
More recently, Darwin's critics have campaigned to have "intelligent design" taught as a scientific alternative to evolution. President George W. Bush and other conservative politicians support this drive to "teach the controversy".
The "ID movement" does not name the designer as God, but its opponents say that is the logical conclusion and call this an unacceptable bid to sneak religion into the teaching of science.
Schools in some parts of the United States teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution but a Pennsylvania court banned it there last year, saying it was religion in disguise.
Catholic teaching accepts evolution as a scientific theory but disagrees with what it calls "evolutionism," the view that the story of life has no role for God as its prime author.
Vienna's Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a close associate of the Pope, was one of four speakers who addressed the meeting. He raised eyebrows last year with a New York Times article that suggested the Catholic Church supported the "ID movement".
Schoenborn and Benedict have said several times over the past year that intelligence in the form of God's will played a part in creation and that neo-Darwinists who deny God any role are drawing an ideological conclusion not proven by the theory.
They say they use philosophical reasoning to conclude that God created the world, not arguments which intelligent design supporters claim can be proven scientifically.
Reader views (4)
The problem the Discovery Institute - the driving force behind ID - has is this, no credibility. They keep telling us that there is a massive amount of growing evidence to support ID but unfortunately the few scraps they do produce/identify have holes that even a layman like myself can drive cars through.
For the majority of spiritual people, amongst who I count myself, the two concepts of evolution and creation are totally seperate - the theory of evolution is something that can be observed, tested and studied, while the creation of the universe and life cannot. The creation of the universe by it's very nature happened outside the universe and does not conform to scientific theories - no matter how many are thrown at it - in other words it takes as big a leap of faith to believe that a stray particle 'popped into existence' (which they do in quantum states) and created the universe as it does to suggest a supreme being called it into existence - neither can be observed, tested or studied and therefore have as much value as each other.
If ID is to be believed as anything other than a christian right-wing power-grab then hard evidence needs to be produced and the creationists semantic games over calling evolution a mere 'theory' suggesting it is unproven - a theory in scientic terms is different to the common usage, Evolution is a theory, ID doesn't even fit the bill as that, in scientific terms it is a hypothosis, a bad one - needs to be dismissed as propoganda.
- Bob Powell, Tamworth, UK
The Church NEVER taught the earth was flat. Anyone who had any education in the Middle Ages believed the earth was a sphere. Invoking the "flat-earth" myth in this context is inappropriate and betrays an ignorance of Church history and the history of science.
- Matt, Philadelphia, United States
I wonder where God is involved in "creating" the world if it and all life in it originates and evolves on its own. If Catholic teaching rejects "evolutionism," I wonder what role it teaches that God has in creation if it accepts what evolutionary scientists and professors are teaching. Was God's involvement in His creation ended 12.6 billion years ago? Or does God act but always in an undetectable way?
- Ronald J. Martin, Fresno, California
Creationist view of the creative days is not the Bibles view. The creative days were long periods covering thousands of years.
The Bibles view states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Full Stop! Science shows that that had to be billions of years ago. The 'Creative Days' didn't begin for eons after the 'heavens' and earth were created.
The word 'day' cannot always be translated as 24hrs. Our solar system is a miniscule part of one galaxy among billions. God doesn't have to be subject to the 24hrs that the earth takes to circle our sun. The Bible says "A thousand years is as one day to Jehovah". A reading of Genesis chapter 1 shows that they clearly were not 24hrs but much longer. By the creationist view the sun and a 24hr day were not even created until the 4th creative day, but look at everything that took place on day 6 alone, far to much to happen in 24hrs.
The Bible was not written as a book of science but when it touches on matters of science it is accurate. (By the bible I do not mean the traditional teachings of the Church.)
Religious authorities often do not properly represent God's view. If they did people would not have been persecuted by a religious powers for saying the earth was not flat since the Bible long ago stated it was round.
Science proves the bible true and that there is a God. However, Creationist view makes the existence of God and the teaching of the bible sound like rubbish. Let's stick to provable facts.
- Phil T, Hertfordshire, UK
