Pope to tout Creationism? Time to rev up the bashing machine!
One of the ongoing theses of Internal Monologue is that the Catholic Church does some pretty ridiculous stuff, and is in many ways a hinderance to human progress. Not only does it preach the same errors as the rest of the monotheists (the existence of God, the goodness and benevolence of God, the immortality of the human soul, and the existence of an afterlife), it adds to these things a ridiculous top-down organizational structure, a vastly inflated notion of its own institutional importance, reactionary sexism and homophobia, ridiculous conceptions of human sexuality and reproduction, and criminal institutional dysfunction (what if a corporation shielded pedophiles the way the Catholic church did?). It's a good thing they established so many hospitals, schools, clinics, orphanages, universities, colleges, and charities. They are an infuriating and exacerbating bundle.
Recently, the Catholic hierarchy has been pushing this country in the wrong direction politically on issues like embyonic stem cell research and marriage equality. I might forgive them if they take a strong anti-war stand, but I think they're too in bed with the right wing these days to do so (may events prove me wrong on this point). As to the millions of Catholics who don't believe these ridiculous things or share these right-wing views, what can I say? Find a new church, dudes, or find some way to reform yours (good luck--a Herculean task if there ever was one). Lots of people have died for your right to get up out of that pew and go somewhere else.
The latest incident that spurrs this Anti-Vatican outrage on my part is that the current Pope is signalling an embrace of Creationism (in the guise of "Intelligent Design") (HT Kevin Drum via Majikthise). One of modern Catholicism's redeeming features has been its willingness to accept and acknowledge the findings of science. It is a point in their favor when comparing them to many fundamentalist Protestant sects, who simply reject outright scientific findings that contradict their worldview. But it seems like on this issue the Catholic Church is feeling the pull of the broader Christian reactionary movement, and is thinking of throwing in their lot with the forces of ignorance and wishful thinking. Maybe they'll shift their stances on heliocentrism, too, and re-excommunicate Gallileo (Majikthise beat me to that one).
One thing that puzzles me is that I thought Creationism and Intelligent Design were largely American phenomena. I thought Europeans had largely accepted human evolution. Why is a German Pope flirting with this notion? I guess we'll have to see how this plays out. As always, I'd be interesting in hearing information/corrections from my Catholic and Catholicism-defending readers.
Recently, the Catholic hierarchy has been pushing this country in the wrong direction politically on issues like embyonic stem cell research and marriage equality. I might forgive them if they take a strong anti-war stand, but I think they're too in bed with the right wing these days to do so (may events prove me wrong on this point). As to the millions of Catholics who don't believe these ridiculous things or share these right-wing views, what can I say? Find a new church, dudes, or find some way to reform yours (good luck--a Herculean task if there ever was one). Lots of people have died for your right to get up out of that pew and go somewhere else.
The latest incident that spurrs this Anti-Vatican outrage on my part is that the current Pope is signalling an embrace of Creationism (in the guise of "Intelligent Design") (HT Kevin Drum via Majikthise). One of modern Catholicism's redeeming features has been its willingness to accept and acknowledge the findings of science. It is a point in their favor when comparing them to many fundamentalist Protestant sects, who simply reject outright scientific findings that contradict their worldview. But it seems like on this issue the Catholic Church is feeling the pull of the broader Christian reactionary movement, and is thinking of throwing in their lot with the forces of ignorance and wishful thinking. Maybe they'll shift their stances on heliocentrism, too, and re-excommunicate Gallileo (Majikthise beat me to that one).
One thing that puzzles me is that I thought Creationism and Intelligent Design were largely American phenomena. I thought Europeans had largely accepted human evolution. Why is a German Pope flirting with this notion? I guess we'll have to see how this plays out. As always, I'd be interesting in hearing information/corrections from my Catholic and Catholicism-defending readers.
Comments
Hey, that's me!
Well Zach, I'm no expert in this area but I know for one thing intelligent design and creationism are two different concepts. I've always associated the creationists with the fundies (Being biblical literalists) who try to reconcile the bible with scientific reality. For example, if one takes genesis literally the world should only 10,000 years old. Creationism is only one hundred year old and a product of wacky American protestant theology.
Intelligent design theory has a different history. I had to look some of this up at wiki. You might want read the articles on creationism and I.D. yourself. Here is some info on the origin of I.D. “For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the Logos, an inherent ordering in the universe, is typically credited to Heraclitus in the 5th century BC, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments.[13] In the 4th century BC, Plato posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature".[” (Wiki)
“The use of this line of reasoning as applied to a supernatural designer has come to be known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. The most notable forms of this argument were expressed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae,[15] design being the fifth of Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence, and by William Paley in his book Natural Theology (1802),[16] where he uses the watchmaker analogy, which is still used in intelligent design arguments. In the early 19th century such arguments led to the development of what was called Natural theology, the study of biology as a search to understand the "mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens that ultimately led to Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer.” (Wiki)
It sounds like certain groups have hijacked the term Intelligent Design as a cover for neo-creationism. I certainly doubt that the Pope is going to make any sort of endorsement of creationism. He is much too intelligent for that. Pope JPII had even alluded that their may be no contradiction between Catholic theology and evolution. I personally see no contradiction between an intelligent designer and evolution although I do think this chap has an interesting theory: http://www.venganza.org/index.htm.
And you just know that if Ratzinger wants to discuss creation, he won't be satisfied to say "God deliberately made us how we are, but He did so through Evolution." It will be something much worse.
Galileo was financially supported by the Church as was most of the scientist of the time. The Church was the greatest benefactor to the arts and science for the last thousand years. Copernicus (Father of heliocentrism), Mendel (Father of Genetics), Georges Lemaître (Proposed the big bang theory) were all Catholic Priests.
“Historians of science including non-Catholics such as J.L. Heilbron,[62] Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg,[63] Edward Grant,[64] Thomas Goldstein,[65] and Ted Davis have been revising the common notion — the product of black legends say some — that the Church has had a negative influence in the development of civilization. They argue that not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the Church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries. St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian," not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. [66] The Church's priest-scientists, many of whom were Jesuits, were the leading lights in astronomy, genetics, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics, becoming the "fathers" of these sciences.
John Cardinal Newman used to say in the nineteenth century that those who attack the Church can only point to the Galileo case, which to many historians does not prove the Church's opposition to science since many of the churchmen at that time were encouraged by the Church to continue their research” (Wiki of course)
I find that comment to be very interesting and take it as a complement. The Catholic faith never ceases to surprise me. Underneath all of its apparent contradictions lie some mysterious truths that keep me coming back.
Yes, Intelligent Design and Creationism are separate theories. But here in the United States, "Intelligent Design" is usually just anti-science under a different name. I am aware of the history of the "argument by design"/great watchmaker idea and a discussion of that argument and my problems with it will have to wait for another post. (It's one of the better arguments for the existence of God but I don't buy it.)
I'm glad to hear that you think the current Pope is too smart for creationism. Let us hope that it is so.
Thanks for pointing out all the pro-science work of the Catholic Church. I was dimly aware of this, but your comments brought it into sharper focus. Yes, there were centuries when the Catholic Church (or at least some parts) of it were beacons of science, art, and the humanities. There was a time when many of the most prominent naturalists were clergy. We have much to be grateful for in this heritage.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a Catholic renaissance, and the Church once again became a great sponsor of scientific endeavor artistic creation? What if the Vatican beat NASA to Mars? Or found an AIDS vaccine? Or nurtured the next Bob Dylan or Picasso? Or eradicated polio? Or discovered a testable theory that united General Relativity and Quantum mechanics? Or first made contact with extraterrestiral intelligent life? That would frickin' rock. If they started doing cool stuff, I'd cheer them on despite my annoyance with their theology and institutional character. But I don't see that "drive to be relevant" in today's Catholic Church.
These are two very different things. I.D. and its traditional theories are a concept I might be able to embrace. On the other hand, creationism is a product of the American fundie anti-intellectualism that is no more legitimate than the “Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.” I agree that I.D. is not hard science in the empirical sense and shouldn’t be taught in public schools as such.
The Guardian article is also a little sensationalized. Remember, the Pope is merely holding a symposium to discuss the matter. The Vatican constantly holds symposiums on everything from bio-ethics to global warming.
I would love to see the Church accomplish all those things and more. The Vatican does do research in the sciences but they can’t compete with the resources of nation states and large corporations. Not anymore.