Although not from the Pope's lips, a newspaper from the Vatican has published an article claiming that Intelligent Design is not science.
(OrlandoSentinel.com) "This isn't how science is done," [Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna] wrote. "If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it's not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science."
Intelligent design "doesn't belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin's explanation is unjustified," he wrote.
Although seen as a way to promote theology, intelligent design (also known as ID) may not have a scientific basis to stand upon. Despite being a perfect way to bring theists together politically, ID is a dangerous philosophy to endorse since it is harder to prove than say, the theory of Creation.
The theory of ID, although interesting lacks observable evidence, and may come across as nothing more than a philosophical point of view. Even the Raelians, (which may appear strange to many individuals) have a belief system that is at least testable.
Evolution does have its own scientific blunders as the gaps in the fossil record has yet to be resolved. But evolution is testable, as is creationism, as both have "specifics" to evaluate against the theories, making them at least observable to historians and scientists alike.
Update: Added extra paragraph.
Want more space geek news? Then subscribe below via email, RSS or twitter for free updates! Prefer another service? How about via RSS or follow Colony Worlds on Twitter!
Posts
Is the issue whether or not evolution exists or whether we are the product of evolution?
ReplyDeleteThe process of evolution is a fact in that there is direct evidence of it all around us in the form of micro organisms. No one disputes the existence of drug resistant bacteria and the process that brought this about. This is never mentioned at all in the debates. This is a curious blind spot.
Evolution as a process can be conveniently studied in any life form that has a short life span and a rapid reproductive rate. With longer life spans and slower reproductive rates, the evolutionary process takes greater lengths of time to observe. Direct detection of the process in people would be impractical as it would be a multigenerational project spanning thousands of years.