Bruce Chapman

Jonathan Witt understates the significance of his new book, “A Meaningful World,” for the meeting Pope Benedict XVI is holding this weekend at Castel Gandolfo outside Rome. Like George Gilder’s fine treatment of intelligent design in relation to information theory and technology, the new book by Witt and Benjamin Wiker, a Catholic philosopher and science writer, expands the scope of ID and effectively opens it to an examination of genius as evidenced in nature and art, in addition to science. This approach doesn’t negate or replace the scientific claims of ID, obviously, but enlarges the lens for looking at them, so to speak. This makes the topic especially inviting for Thomists and other natural philosophers in the Catholic Church and various other Christian traditions, as well as theists generally

The recent Guardian story that the Pope may be about to endorse intelligent design as a scientific theory is way off the mark, I believe. There clearly is more media interest in this weekend’s meeting than the annual reunion of the pope’s former theology students ordinarily would warrant, even given this year’s special topic. But there will be a lively discussion. Various opinions will be heard. And I suppose you can expect a lot of uninformed spin afterwards. But don’t expect some definitive new Vatican declaration on science questions. (Granted, I COULD BE SURPRISED!)

For those with cable or satellite TV reception, the documentary “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy”, airing on various stations across the country this Saturday and Sunday, has kicked up a fuss that should spark public interest and viewership. We have no idea whether the program is well done or not, but we do notice–like “Joy” at TelicThoughts–that Darwinists are displaying an unseemly interest in hiding from the historically undeniable connections that link the eugenics movement that Darwin’s supporters–including family members–organized in the 19th century (followed eagerly by Ernst Haeckel in Germany) to the US eugenics laws of the past century, then Hitler’s murder of handicapped people and “inferior” races, and then the new eugenics movement of our time. CSC Fellow Richard Weikart’s Read More ›

Pope Benedict XVI has replaced an evangelizing Darwinist, Dr. George Coyne, as director the Vatican Observatory, according to Zenit News. A Jesuit with a doctorate in astronomy, Dr. Coyne in recent years made himself the public scourge of Darwin critics and scientific proponents of intelligent design. Increasingly his theology resembled that of “process theologians” who believe that God is still learning and could not have known what his world was becoming.

While media tended to avoid the pro-design statements of the pope over the past year (see “Is the Pope Catholic?“), they frequently sited the hostile remarks of Dr. Coyne, sitting at his office at the University of Arizona, as supposedly representing those of “the Vatican.” That could not have been well-received at the Vatican in Rome. Rumors that Coyne might be replaced have circulated for months.

In the past year since he criticized the pro-design essay of Austrian Cardinal Schoenborn in the NY Times, Dr. Coyne has been feted at a number of unlikely gatherings where his job was to express Church support for Darwinism. At a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Coyne pronounced in favor of a “fertile universe” where “chance and destiny embrace.” The notes handed out for a talk given by Coyne by that title state:

Wesley J. Smith (seen here with White House press secretary Tony Snow) was invited to the West Wing yesterday to witness the President’s veto of the embryonic stem cell bill. Smith, a Discovery senior fellow on bioethics issues, writes frequently for various magazines and newspapers, including The Weekly Standard and National Review Online, is promoting the theme of the unique importance of human life–of “human exceptionalism”. People are not like other animals spiritually, morally or even physically. Smith’s blog, linked by Discovery (see here), today carries the news of breakthroughs in adult stem cell medicine. The mainstream media have been wantonly obtuse about the the fact that the opponents of providing new federal funds and embryonic stem cells for research Read More ›

One of the benefits of real intelligent design is encouragement of reverse engineering to understand how nature works and how to correct problems in nature (disease, for example)–and to provoke new inventions. (Spare us the argument that because you have a trick knee and an appendix you couldn’t have been designed. You should meet my old Taurus; it was designed, too, and it was still a rattletrap.) Some scientists seem to be making the design connection, as this AP story indicates, but as Bill Dembski “cattily” says, they don’t want to own up to what they are doing. Instead of worrying about a bogus “theological clash” with intelligent design scientists (whose theory definition the AP once again mangles), the folks Read More ›

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg gave one of those suddenly vogue commencement addresses–the kind where you ingratiate yourself to the graduates, in this case at Johns Hopkins Medical School, by reference to specific professors and courses they no longer will have to endure. This rhetorical tactic will be a recognized mortar-board cliché by next year, but it probably was a great crowd pleaser in Baltimore yesterday.

This story from England is a month old, but took a while getting over the Pond to my in-box . Dennett and Dawkins say in public what Eugenie Scott says in private. Ruse may actually be sincere (though sincerely wrong), and not a ruse deviser at all. He was morally compromised some time ago when he took to quaffing beer with known “creationists in disguise” (as the ACLU’s favorite judge would call them). Ever since then Ruse has been incapable of sober materialist judgement. Recently in his Seattle debate with Steve Meyer, Peter Ward, too, criticized Dawkins, and with a bit of a snarl, I thought–all happily captured and preserved on tape. Dennett should rise again to the defense of Read More ›

The new journalistic standard that politically incorrect views do not need to be represented, let alone reported fairly, was on full display on today’s NPR Morning Edition coverage of a teachers convention in California where a class was taught on how to teach evolution. Reporter Gloria Hillard did a fine job of hyping what was, in fact, a small gathering and allowing evolutionist Prof. Ken Miller plenty of time to define the issue of intelligent design.If you want to know the opposition view, go to the Answers in Genesis creationist website for further information on the topic, he suggested. Wasn’t that nice of him? There was no attempt whatever to have a contrary point of view heard. Usually NPR at Read More ›

Dr. George Coyne, the University of Arizona astronomer and Jesuit priest who is also head of the Vatican Observatory has been speaking to whatever Darwinist group will have him on the topic of why intelligent design “belittles God” and should be opposed by Catholics, who, indeed, should welcome Darwin’s theory in all its glory. Coyne has infinite Christian charity and patience for Darwinists who diss God, but none at all for his co-religionists who doubt Darwin.

A news article last week in the National Catholic Register that merely reported Coyne’s provocative views sparked a spate of letters this week (April 30-May 6 issue–not yet available online) rebuking Dr. Coyne for misrepresenting ID (among other things he called it “a fundamentalist movement”) and for attacking Cardinal Schoenborn of Austria. The cardinal, of course, has emphasized the Church’s longstanding commitment to the reality of design in nature and has pointed out the folly of full-blown Darwinism. At the end of the extensive letters column the editors make clear that they were not endorsing Coyne’s views. In fact, they state, “Our editorial position…is very close to that of the Discovery Institute.”