Another Vatican Employee Rebuts Creationism

That’s right, I said creationism. Why? Because I think “intelligent design” is the same type of Orwellian political term concoted by White House advisers (like “The Clear Skies Initiative” and “No Child Left Behind”) meant to distort reality and I refuse to play along. I personally do believe in God (though I am lax to ever claim to know what that means entirely), and that the universe has an inherent “intelligent design” behind it, innate and apparent in the workings of nature, et al (Like, wow, DNA!). However, I don’t actually believe God clumped up a bunch of dirt in his hands and breathed life into a golem named Adam. Sorry. I’ll stick with Rambam on this one: Anyone who reads the Torah as a literal document is acting a fool.
And on that note, Catholic World News reports:

The director of the Vatican Observatory has lashed out at proponents of the theory of Intelligent Design, the Italian news service ANSA reports.
“Intelligent design isn’t science, even if it pretends to be,” said Father George Coyne. He said that if the theory is introduced in schools, it should be taught in religion classes, not science classes. ANSA reported that the Jesuit priest made his remarks at a conference in Florence.
Father Coyne had criticized Intelligent Design previously, in an article that appeared in October in the British Catholic newspaper, The Tablet. In that article, he took issue with Cardinal Christoph Sch?nborn (bio – news), who had published an essay in the New York Times pointing to the weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Whereas Cardinal Sch?nborn argued that a strictly material approach to evolution cannot answer ultimate questions about the origin of man, Father Coyne countered that critics of evolution are underestimating God’s willingness to give “freedom” to the processes of nature.

Full story.

4 thoughts on “Another Vatican Employee Rebuts Creationism

  1. oh david, and you wonder why i exhibit such “contempt” for the orthodox. it’s not the orthodox i have trouble with. it’s orthodox people like you, who think they own the torah.
    that’s your second personal attack since we launched our responsible speech campaign. next one and your’e outta here.

  2. (Um, I posted this in the wrong place; it should be HERE).
    The only addition I would add to Mobius’ quite excellent post, is that too many literalists don’t know the meaning of the word ‘fundamental,’ as in that which is the root, and/or intention.
    Of course literalists are idiot sophists; it’s much easier to believe, than to think and reflect. But, for those sophists among us, how can you believe in literalism, when Torah literally seems to contradict itself (eg., Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:18).
    Rabbi Dennis Shulman’s ‘The Genius of Genesis’ reflects upon such contradictions, then shows that they are only so, from a literalist myopic view. R. Shulman also cites the Rambam.

  3. Mobius,
    Pardon my ignorance in asking these questiions, as I am not as learned/exposed as most posters to this sight. Unfortunately for readers, posters and yourself, I’m curious and key-happy this evening while I procrastinate doing my work…
    In your reading and understanding of Rambam, did he imply Torah as “only” a literal document, or at all. In other words, does Rambam declare that Torah as a whole is figurative, that Torah is a story book with lessons to live by and that Gd wrote it or gave it over or brought it down this way for it to be better understood by mankind? Thinking aloud, that doesn’t seem likely. Perhaps I assume too much. Still, I wonder if he meant that everything there happens as is and is brought down in a special, figurative way for better understanding, learning, telling, etc. And what about the levels of reading/learning Torah, that layered system whose Hebrew worded breakdown I’m too lazy to confirm the names of right now… I hope you know what I mean.
    I feel like a Philip Roth character when I ask you: If Gd is the Holy One we daven to, responsible for all kinds of dope stuff, weird stuff, etc. (too put it very very simply) why couldn’t it (golem balloon) have happened the literal way?
    Again, I ask not to challenge or debate. I am simply curious.
    Boruch Dovid

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.