Moving the ID debate to Europe

Hi. As Italian I'have tried to render understandable the original translation (very ugly indeed). Unfortunately I have not much time to perform a better work. Hoping to have performed a usegful task. K. It has the warm, most current topic - “Creation and Evolution” - the seminary of study that has been organized at Castel Gandolfo, where the Pope is going to consult today and tomorrow a group of scientists, teologians and academics of several thoughts together with with forty of his former-pupils. "Relationship between faith and evolution of the species", issue on which people is discussing more and more loudly, mainly beyond the Ocean, with great amount of articles, conferences and blogs by university professors and believers. At Castel Gandolfo there will be represented the positions that, on the argument, have been expressed from science and the catholic (and protestant) world . In the opening, one of the protagonists of the debate, the cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna will speak. In fact, the dispute on darwinism has become very hot after his article, published on 7 July 2005 from the New York Times, with the title it “Finding Design in Natures”, i.e. to find a design in the nature. Now the cardinal is going to improve his proposal concerning its more problematic aspect: in the schools, the darwinism should not be taught like an unquestionable theory, that is it shuld bes illustrated also its gaps, those “missing links”, or lacking passages, that were recognized by Darwin himself. But has the “darwiniana history” an alternative? Yes: “It is the synthesis between the scale of Darwin and the scale of Jacob”, said the cardinal at the Meeting of Rimini [A meeting which is yearly organized by the Catholic movement Comunione e Liberazione]. “It is in fact unreasonable to see the great path of the life till the man as a process guided by pure chance. The Church rejects an evolution so conceived”. This is the point that is common in all the positions that have emerged in the Christian world, on this problem. The theory of Darwin cannot be accepted if “it is imposed as a materialistic ideology which influences the economic and social life and the guidelines in the field of bioethics”, Schönborn outlines. Today who does not gain the fight of competition is lost. That the theory of the evolution is introduced as an absolute and binding vision of the truth is a critical point that was also raised by Joseph Ratzinger when he was cardinal in the test Faith, Truth, Tolerance: the darwinism operates as a sort "of first philosophy, an authentic foundation of the rational understanding of the world, beyond which any further questions on the origin and the nature of the things are not allowed or necessary anymore”. Then, many times the Pope has asserted that the man is not “the product, accidental and without sense, of the evolution”. “Everyone of us is the fruit of a thought of God and his life has been intentional by God”. Then it is not to deny the development of the species, but to assert that the evolution is not incompatible with the creation. It is what that is thought, among the catholic scientists, by those who think founded the theory of the evolution but that do not want that it be “a omnicomprehensive vision”. “The evoluzionism cannot exclude philosophical and religious approaches. Otherwise it becomes ideology”, asserts Fiorenzo Facchini, teacher of human paleoanthropology at Bologna. “In fact, within the laws of the nature it is realizing a design that is present in the mind of God”. However, Facchini points out that the Intelligent Design “cannot be considered a scientific theory”, and should “find its place in the teaching of religion and philosophy”. A radical evoluzionist, the biologist Richard Dawkins, gets the dispute to its extreme tones. He attacks the Intelligent Design because, he says, the God-designer is “blind”. The discussion is spreading. And the map of the movements that are disputing, mainly in the USA, is described from Philip Larrey, who teaches at the Papal Lateranense University and has studied in depth the debate. According to the strictest evoluzionists, the theory of the natural selection is enough to explain the existence and the development of all the living organisms. The antagonist front is very differentiated. The creationists ante litteram, who think that God created the world in the times and the ways described in the Bible, have yielded the step to the “scientific creationism”; but many, as Schönborn, think that “the alternative to the darwinismo is not the creationism”. And so a significant part of the critics of the darwinism has become supporters of “intelligent design”. In the United States this theory has been used by someone as the flag of a political-cultural movement, that is front attacking. Instead, the moderate people of the Intelligent Design try to discuss in constructive way with the moderate evolutionists, observes Larrey. The patient research work is nticeable at the level of specialistic journals and scientific articles (“by now the literature on this argument is hugely large”). “As an example, William Dembski, a famous mathematician and philosopher, one of the theorists of the intelligent design, is used to exchanges (also abruptly) scientific observations with Emile Zuckerkandl, biologist at Stanford. Dembski supports that the eucariotic flagellum - a unicellulare organism - is the product of a “design” and not of the evolution; it cannot have had an evolutionary darwinian path because, alhough being a protozoo from at the beginnig of its development, it is already equipped with hundred of “molecular machines”, that is of proteins”. Here: can this be one of the “lacking passages” of which Schönborn speaks? It would contribute to demonstrate that the theory of the evolution does not explain some complex phenomena neither the special role of the biological information. Also some evolutionist scientists think so: the life would have formed and evoluted also by means of natural processes of auto-organization of cells and molecules, without the contribution of the natural selection. This last, the scientist Lodovico Galleni comments , “appears in some phases of the evolution but it is not continuously in action in order to control every step of the development”. For Galleni the “evolution is an historical fact like the roman Empire, and it does not imply the negation of God”. Also for a wide part of people that support intelligent design the evolution cannot be denied, at least in toto; it is a useful theory for the science; but, they say, it is necessary to know more about. The researches of Dembski and his colleagues aim at giving a scientific foundation to the “intelligent design”. Larrey asks: “But if also that one of Darwin is, after all, a logical inference, i.e. a deduction - why the darwinian inference is considered scientific and the “intelligent design” one not?”kairos

September 6, 2006

September

09

Sep

6

06

2006

10:30 AM

10

10

30

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Here's an English (computer generated) translation--for what it's worth. (It's almost incomprehensible in many places. I posted this same translation, spent about 45 minutes making changes, and then it got lost somewhere. So I'm not bothering to make changes this time around.) It has the warm, most current topic - “Creation and Evolution” - the seminary of organized study to Castel Gandolfo where the Pope consults today and tomorrow a group of scientists, teologi and academics of several tendencies with with forty its former-pupils. Relationship between faith and evolution of the species: issue on which it is discussed more and more animatamente, species to beyond the Ocean, with great amount of banns, conferences and blog of university professors and believers. To Castel Gandolfo they come represented the positions that, on the argument, have been expressed from science and the catholic world (and protestant). It speaks, in opening, one of the protagonists of the debate, the cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna. The dispute on the darwinismo has become incandescent after its article, published the 7 July 2005 from the New York Times, with the title it “Finding Design in Natures”, to find a design in the nature. Hour the integral cardinal its proposal on the more delicate aspect: in the schools, the darwinismo would not have to be taught like an unquestionable theory, that is would have some is illustrated also gaps, those “missing link”, or lacking passages, recognized from same Darwin. But the “darwiniana history” has an alternative? Yes: “The synthesis between the scale of Darwin and the scale of Giacobbe”, has said the cardinal to the Meeting of Rimini. “It is in fact unreasonable to see the great distance of the life until the man like a process guided from the pure case. The Church rejects a conceived evolution therefore”. It is the common point to all the positions emerged in the Christian world, on this problem. The theory of Darwin cannot be accepted if “tax like materialistica ideology comes that influences the economic life, social and the guidelines in the field of the bioethics”, finds Schönborn. Today who does not gain the fight of the competition is lost. That the theory of the evolution comes introduced as absolute and binding vision of the truth is a critical relief moved from Joseph Ratzinger already when he was cardinal, in the test Faith Truth Tolerance: the darwinismo operates before like rising of “philosophy, of authentic foundation of the understanding rations them of the world, to beyond which the ulterior questions on the origin and the nature of the things are not more lawful or necessary”. Many times over then the Pope has asserted that the man is not “the product, accidental and without sense, of the evolution”. “Everyone of we is fruit of a thought of God, has been intentional from God”. Then draft not to deny the development of the species, but to assert that the evolution is not incompatible with the creation. It is how much think, between the catholic scientists, those who think founded the theory of the evolution but to not they want not even they it “like totaling vision”. “The evoluzionismo cannot exclude philosophical and religious approaches. If ago, it becomes ideology”, asserts Fiorenzo Facchini, teacher of human paleoantropologia to Bologna. “Of fact, within the laws of the nature, a present design in the mind of God is come true”. Facchini points out but that the Intelligent Design “cannot be considered a scientific theory”, and it would have “to find place in the instruction of the religion and the philosophy”. A radical evoluzionista, the biologist Richard Dawkins, door the comparison to the extreme tones. The Intelligent attacks Design because, it says, the God-designer is “blind”. The argument is increased. And the map of the movements that are confronted, species in USA, is described from Philip Larrey, than standard to the Papal Lateranense University and has studied in depth the debate. According to the inflessibili evoluzionisti, the theory of the natural selection enough to explain the existence and the development of all the living organisms. The antagonist forehead is much articulating. The creazionisti ante litteram, second which God has created the world in the times and the ways described in the Bible, have yielded the step to the “scientific creazionismo”; but many, like Schönborn, think not that “the alternative to the darwinismo is not the creazionismo”. And therefore a part consisting of the critics us of the darwinismo meets between the supporters of the “intelligent design”. In the United States this theory comes used from some like flag of a political-cultural movement, that it loads to low head. It moderates you of the forehead of the Intelligent Design, instead, try to discuss in constructive way with the evoluzionisti moderates to you, observes Larrey. The patient famous research work to level of specialistic reviews and scientific tests (“by now the literature with regard to has sconfinata itself”). “As an example, William Dembski, famous mathematician and philosopher, one of the theorists of the intelligent design, abruptly exchanges (also) scientific observations with Emile Zuckerkandl, biologist of Stanford. Dembski supports that the eucariotico flagellum - organism to unicellulare - is fruit of a “design” and not of the evolution; it cannot have that is had an evolutionary distance of darwiniano type because, also being a protozoo at the beginnig of its development, already it is equipped of hundred of “blots some molecular”, of proteins”. Here: this can be one of the “passages lacking” which Schönborn speaks? It would contribute to demonstrate that the theory of the evolution does not explain sure complex phenomena neither the special role of the biological information. Scientists also think therefore evoluzionisti: the life would have formed and evoluta also for natural processes of car-organization of cells and molecules, without resource to the natural selection. This, comments the scientist Lodovico Galleni, “appears in sure is made of the evolution but it is not continuously in action in order to control every feature of the development”. For Galleni the “evolution is an historical fact like the roman Empire, and it does not imply the negation of God”. Also for wide part of how many they support the intelligent design, the evolution cannot be denied, at least in toto; useful theory to science is one; but, they say, is necessary to more know some. The searches of Dembski and the colleagues aim at giving a scientific foundation to the “intelligent design”. “But if also that one of Darwin is, in bottom, a logical inference, that is a deduction - Larrey is asked - because the darwiniana inference comes considered scientific while that one of the “intelligent design” not”PaV

September 5, 2006

September

09

Sep

5

05

2006

10:45 PM

10

10

45

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Here's a computer-generated English translation. You're going to have to 'fill in the gaps' some. Anyone familiar with computer translations know how lousy they can be. Just compare my above translation of the last sentence of the article, and the computer generated one. That might help you fill in the gaps. It has the warm, most current topic - “Creation and Evolution” - the seminary of organized study to Castel Gandolfo where the Pope consults today and tomorrow a group of scientists, teologi and academics of several tendencies with with forty its former-pupils. Relationship between faith and evolution of the species: issue on which it is discussed more and more animatamente, species to beyond the Ocean, with great amount of banns, conferences and blog of university professors and believers. To Castel Gandolfo they come represented the positions that, on the argument, have been expressed from science and the catholic world (and protestant). It speaks, in opening, one of the protagonists of the debate, the cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna. The dispute on the darwinismo has become incandescent after its article, published the 7 July 2005 from the New York Times, with the title it “Finding Design in Natures”, to find a design in the nature. Hour the integral cardinal its proposal on the more delicate aspect: in the schools, the darwinismo would not have to be taught like an unquestionable theory, that is would have some is illustrated also gaps, those “missing link”, or lacking passages, recognized from same Darwin. But the “darwiniana history” has an alternative? Yes: “The synthesis between the scale of Darwin and the scale of Giacobbe”, has said the cardinal to the Meeting of Rimini. “It is in fact unreasonable to see the great [span of life leading to man as a randomly guided process]distance of the life until the man like a process guided from the pure case. The Church rejects a conceived evolution therefore”. It is the common point to all the positions emerged in the Christian world, on this problem. The theory of Darwin cannot be accepted if “tax like materialistica ideology comes that influences the economic life, social and the guidelines in the field of the bioethics”, finds Schönborn. Today who does not gain the fight of the competition is lost. That the theory of the evolution comes introduced as absolute and binding vision of the truth is a critical relief moved from Joseph Ratzinger already when he was cardinal, in [his book]"Faith Truth Tolerance": the darwinismo operates before like rising of “philosophy, of authentic foundation of the understanding rations them of the world, to beyond which the ulterior questions on the origin and the nature of the things are not more lawful or necessary”. Many times over then the Pope has asserted that man is not “the product, accidental and without purpose, of evolution”. “Everyone of us is the fruit of a thought of God; has been willed by God”. Then draft not to deny the development of the species, but to assert that the evolution is not incompatible with the creation. It is how much think, between the catholic scientists, those who think founded the theory of the evolution but to not they want not even they it “like totaling vision”. “The evoluzionismo cannot exclude philosophical and religious approaches. If ago, it becomes ideology”, asserts Fiorenzo Facchini, teacher of human paleoantropologia to Bologna. “Of fact, within the laws of the nature, a present design in the mind of God is come true”. Facchini points out that the Intelligent Design “cannot be considered a scientific theory”, and it must “find a place in the teaching of religion and philosophy”. A radical evoluzionist, the biologist Richard Dawkins, takes the comparison to the extreme. He attacks Intelligent Design because, he says, the God-designer is “blind”. The argument is increased. And the map of the movements that are confronted, especially in the USA, is described by Philip Larrey, standard to the Papal Lateranense University who has studied in depth the debate. According to the rigid evolutionists, the theory of natural selection is enough to explain the existence and the development of all living organisms. The opposing forces are very vocal. The creationists, ante litteram, affirm that God has created the world in the times and the ways described in the Bible, have yielded to the “scientific creationism”; but many, like Schönborn, think that “the alternative to darwinism is not the creazionism”. And therefore a part of those critical of darwinism are supporters of “intelligent design”. In the United States this theory is used like a flag of a political-cultural movement, (that it loads to low head.)(??) But moderates at the forefront of the Intelligent Design movement, instead, try to have constructive discussions with moderate evolutionists, observes Larrey. The patient famous research work to level of specialistic reviews and scientific tests (“by now the literature with regard to has sconfinata itself”). “As an example, William Dembski, famous mathematician and philosopher, one of the theorists of the intelligent design, sharply exchanges scientific observations with Emile Zuckerkandl, biologist from Stanford. Dembski maintains that the eucaryotic flagellum--a unicellular organism--is the fruit of “design” and not of evolution; it cannot have covered this evolutionary distance in Darwinian fashion because, also being a protozoa at the beginning of its development, it already was equipped with hundreds of (“blots some molecular”??), of proteins”. Here: can this be one of the “missing links” of which Schönborn speaks? It helps to demonstrate that the theory of the evolution does not explain such complex phenomena nor the special role of biological information. Scientists who are also evoluzionists think: life could have formed and evolved as well by natural processes of cellular and molecular organization, without resource to natural selection. "This", comments the scientist Lodovico Galleni, “appears to be evolution at work, but it is not continuously in action in order to control every feature of the development”. For Galleni “evolution is an historical fact like the Roman Empire, and it does not necessarily imply the negation of God”. Also for many of those who support intelligent design, evolution is not denied, at least in toto; it is considered to be a useful theory for science; but, they would say, it is necessary to know more. The works of Dembski and his colleagues aim at giving a scientific foundation to “intelligent design”. “But if also that one of Darwin is, in bottom, a logical inference, that is a deduction - Larrey is asked - because the darwiniana inference comes considered scientific while that one of the “intelligent design” not” I've touched up the translation a bit, here and there. Enjoy--if it's possible. :)PaV

September 5, 2006

September

09

Sep

5

05

2006

10:23 PM

10

10

23

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Why, Larrey was on UD in March. Here's the link: https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/938 I'm still searching.PaV

September 5, 2006

September

09

Sep

5

05

2006

09:51 PM

9

09

51

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

It's a fairly balanced article giving an almost positive picture of ID. A Phillip Larrey gives a very balanced and positive view. The article ends with Larrey asking this question: "If Darwinism is, basically a logical inference, that is, a deduction, one has to ask why is Darwin's inference considered science while that of "intelligent design" is not? Fair enough question, eh? Does anyone know anything about Larrey? I'm going to google his name right now.PaV

September 5, 2006

September

09

Sep

5

05

2006

09:48 PM

9

09

48

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link