Reverend Ref +

THE VATICAN SPEAKS . . . SORT OF

I read this article in the NY Times this morning about the Vatican, Intelligent Design and science. In case you can't access it, the article basically says that, in the opinion of the Vatican, the Pennsylvania judge who ruled that I.D. should not be taught as a scientific alternative to creation was correct. While not "Official Vatican Policy," the article in the official Vatican newspaper carries significant weight.

Basically the author, Fiorenzo Facchini, is stating that I.D. is not science, it is more philosophical and/or theological in nature.

There is a distinct difference between the science of evolution, and "evolutionism." The science of evolution is all about understanding how things work, how things are related and inter-related and how things have, well, evolved over the eons. It does not attempt to answer the "why" of things. Nor does it rule out that God, who is probably the most misunderstood life form in the universe, could be a player in the evolutionary process.

Evolutionism, on the other hand (and as I understand it), seems to be answering the questions of why we are here with the answer, "Because billions of years ago there was an explosion that threw all the elements into a random mix and over time that soup generated living organisms from which we are descended." In other words, God is not a player in the world of evolutionism.

Likewise, there is a distinct difference between creation and "creationism." In creation, we seek to explain the "why" of things. Why do we exist, why does the earth exist, why does the universe exist, etc. The answer to that can be found in the first sentence of the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. There you go. God made it. Notice, though, that there is no mention of "how" that happened. Could God have used evolution? Sure. Could God have used some form of categorized evolution, as in "not everything started from the same source but plants and minerals and animals from three distinct sources"? Why not.

Creationism, on the other hand, appears to be a religious sect unto itself that mandates a belief in the "how" of things. How did God create the world? Not through evolution, that's for damn sure. God created "the vast expanse of interstellar space, galaxies, suns, the planets in their courses and this fragile earth" as you see them not more than 6000 years ago (or some other ridiculously short time ago). It seems to me that a mandatory belief in in "creationism" puts the awesome power of an omnipotent God who is beyond all understanding in a very tiny little box.

What was it the Genie said in Aladdin . . . "All that power squeezed into an itty bitty space."

If you are going to profess belief in an all powerful God, then maybe you should allow that God the power to do things that are beyond your understanding.