米国のバイブルベルト唯一のカトリック枢機卿である、テキサス州Galveston-HoustonのDaniel DiNardo枢機卿のインタビュー記事をNational Catholic Reporterが掲載した。この中で、Daniel DiNardo枢機卿は創造論およびインテリジェントデザインについて科学として語ることを問題視する立場で答えている。
When someone in the Bible Belt asks you what the Catholic church thinks about creationism, what do you say?


I actually don’t know that anyone’s ever asked me, but if someone did, what I would say is that the Bible tells us the ‘why’ of things. The importance of the Book of Genesis is on the ordered character of God’s creation. For the rest, the Catholic church is receptive to the role of reason, and reason tells us ‘how’ things go. To us, the ‘why’ is more important, and that’s what religion answers. Of course, there are some people, whether in the state of Texas or outside, who want to use the creationism question to attack the notion that God has any role or any agency in the world at all. That’s not true with all people who argue for evolution, but it’s true of some of them. You have to realize that in Texas, those would be fighting words among the politicians.


There are some Catholics in the United States who are very attracted to the idea of ‘intelligent design.’ What do you make of that?


If ‘intelligent design’ is used as a philosophical argument to talk about the foundations of how we understand science, I have no problem with it. Some people are using it as a scientific explanation per se, but it’s really not. It’s a philosophical explanation trying to show the presuppositions by which we can talk about divine purpose or providence in the world. I think that’s great, that’s very important.


The problem I see on both sides –both with some of those who are pushing the evolution agenda and with intelligent design – is that they’re really arguing philosophy, they’re not arguing science.


Of course, the intelligent design people understand themselves to be making a scientific argument. They contend that you can’t explain to move from simple to complex species in terms of a linear progression driven by random mutation and natural selection, that there’s an ‘irreducible complexity’ to life that requires the hypothesis of a designer.


Some of that is probably true, though I don’t know that it necessarily leads to intelligent design. Of course, you can take an alternative explanation [to evolution]. You could use Aristotle’s notion of substantial forms that are just always around, for example, and explain the results that way, which wouldn’t necessarily give you a theory of design.


I think we have to be careful in our public schools that when people are teaching evolution, they’re not teaching metaphysical evolution, but rather methodological evolution, which is okay.


[Interview with Cardinal Daniel DiNardo (2008/10/12) on National Catholic Reporter]


posted by Kumicit at 2008/10/14 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | News | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]