The theory of intelligent design is a rational explanation of the origin of life based on observation and not a "religious tenet superimposed on the facts," said Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh.
The bishop discussed intelligent design and evolution in a column appearing in the Sept. 16 Pittsburgh Catholic, the diocesan newspaper.
And:
The bishop wrote that belief in intelligent design as a conclusion of human reason goes back thousands of years to the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.
"They concluded that intelligent design has nothing to do with religious faith and everything to do with reason and science as we name them today," he wrote.
"One can easily conclude from reason alone that there is intelligent design in the universe," the bishop wrote.
Yeah, and I can conclude from reason alone that the sun, moon and stars revolve around the Earth, which is flat and the center of the universe. All I have to do is look out the window. It's common sense.
For all his theological acumen, it is obvious that Bishop Wuerl has no scientific background or training. And you know what? Neither did Plato or Aristotle. Does the Bishop really want to buttress his arguement with Aristotle, who literally set science back hundreds of years with his erroneous notions?
- That fossils are the remains of once living organisms was understood by the Greeks (e.g. Anaximander ~610-540 BCE). Herodotus (~484-425 BCE) recognized that marine fossils found strewn around the Egyptian desert are the remains of marine organisms that lived there at a time that part of the continent was under water.
- They recognized that fossils document evolution and that fossilized organisms occurred in environments suitable to that particular organism. These understandings virtually disappeared due to Aristotle (384-322 BCE) who claimed fossils were natural artifacts and had never been living organisms.
- The Christian church accepted Aristotle's views, which persisted until the 18th century, despite repeated arguments by observers of natural phenomena including Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519).
All of this sudden hostility to the rationality of science makes the publication of a cardinal's diary describing the conclave that elected Cardinal Ratzinger to pope all the more frustrating. Ratzinger won a razor-thin election and despite claims to the contrary, has very little "mandate" to base his directives upon:
The diary of the anonymous cardinal is also significant because it shows that Ratzinger didn't garner a huge margin -- he had 84 of the 115 votes in the final ballot, seven more than the required two-thirds majority.
His two immediate predecessors, Pope John Paul II and Pope John Paul I, are believed to have garnered 99 and 98 votes respectively, and that was when there were only 111 voting cardinals.
"It does seem that somebody wants to indicate that the conclave was a more complex process than was being depicted and that Benedict's mandate was not a slam dunk," said David Gibson, a former Vatican Radio journalist who is writing a biography of Benedict.
That we ended up with Ratzinger by the tiniest of margins is bad enough (why can't we return to the ancient tradition of papal ascent by popular acclaim of Roman citzenry?). But it's who we could've had that brings me to the verge of tears: Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a Jesuit, from Argentina:
It's hard to question Cardinal Bergoglio's concern for the poor when he does many things to display humility. For instance, upon receiving his appointment, he instructed supporters to donate the money that they had raised for Vatican festivities. He refused to live in the Buenos Aires archbishop's palace, choosing instead a small apartment where he prepared his own dinners. He traded in a chauffeured limousine for public transportation. But, beyond his austerity, he's taken public stances on numerous political and socioeconomic issues that have plagued his native Argentina, which is still recovering from financial turmoil. In this light, perhaps it's fitting that he once presented a report on behalf of the Synod of Bishops -- a position that he described as "keeping watch" for the people.
I goggle at this man's credentials. He's humble. He's austere. He cares for the poor and isn't a Vatican insider. He's a chemist and a Jesuit, which means he not only respects science, but understands it. He isn't a liberal, as some would hope for--in many areas, he follows very closely in John Paul II's ideological footsteps. Reading descriptions of him online, he comes across as pragmatic. Perhaps most importantly, though, he didn't want the job, unlike Benedict XVI, who pretty much started campaigning for it before John Paul II breathed his last.
The man embodies the core Christian values that so many members of the church--and not just the Catholic Church, but other denominations as well--seem to regard as a nusiance at best and barely pay lip service to. I'm sure I'd disagree with much of what he would do as pope (John Paul II disappointed me a great deal, even though I still consider him one of the greatest popes of the past several centuries) but I can only hope that when the next conclave rolls around, the 68-year-old Cardinal Bergoglio is still available to assume the shoes of the Fisherman.
Now Playing: Sting Dream of the Blue Turtles
No comments:
Post a Comment