2009年2月10日に、Catholic News ServiceThe Associated Pressが「3月に開かれる、ヴァチカンが後援する進化論について会議で、インテリジェントデザインを文化イデオロギーとして批判的に検討する」と会議の主催者が述べたと報じた:
Vatican conference will give intelligent design critical study

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- An upcoming Vatican-sponsored conference on evolution will include critical study of the theory of intelligent design, which, organizers said, represents poor theology and science.

While proponents of intelligent design were not invited to give presentations at the March 3-7 international conference, organizers agreed to discuss how it appeared and developed as a cultural ideology, not as science.

A number of presentations will discuss intelligent design's "long and complex genesis" in a historical context and its impact on society and culture because it is "certainly not discussable in the scientific, philosophic and theological fields," said Saverio Forestiero, professor of zoology at Rome's Tor Vergata University and a member of the conference's organizing committee.

Forestiero was one of the speakers at a Vatican press conference Feb. 10 presenting the March event, titled "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories."



ローマのor Vergata Universityの動物学の教授であり、会議の組織委員会の委員であるSaverio Forestieroは「多くの講演が、歴史的コンテキストでのインテリジェントデザインの長く複雑な出自と、社会と文化への影響を論じることになる。というのは、インテリジェントデザインは、科学・哲学・神学として論じられなのは明らかだからである」と述べた。

Saverio Forestiero教授は、3月のイベント「生物進化:事実と理論」についての2月10日のヴァチカンの記者会見の講演者のひとりである。

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are organizing the international conference to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and the 200th anniversary of his birth.

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, said the conference was in no way a "celebration in honor of the English scientist." He said it would be an occasion to critically assess an event that permanently altered the history of science and changed the way people understand humanity.

教皇文化評議会とローマのPontifical Gregorian UniversityとインディアナのUniversity of Notre Dameは、チャールズ・ダーウィンの"種の起源"の出版150周年と、チャールズ・ダーウィン生誕200年を記念した国際会議を主催する。

Pontifical Gregorian Universityの哲学教授である、Marc Leclercイエズス会神父は「会議は、英国の科学者を讃えるだけのものではない。科学史を永久に変え、人々が人類を理解する方法を変えたイベントを批判的に評価する機会となるだろう。」と述べた。

However, too often people opposed to Darwinian theories confused his scientific work on evolution with the various social and political ideologies that were based on Darwin's findings in nature, said Father Leclerc.

The mistaken belief that Darwinian evolution was totally incompatible with religion and faith in God could be part of the reason for the emergence of intelligent design, he said.

Intelligent design refers to a view that opposes the evolutionary position of chance and randomness as the process for the development of life and, for some, it also means a kind of "designer God" has intervened at particular points in natural development.

The Jesuit priest said intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution is "far from scientific discussion," but its role or impact on philosophy and theology should be examined.

「しかし、人々はあまりにも頻繁に、進化についてのダーウィンの科学的成果と、自然界でのダーウィンの発見に基づく様々な社会的・政治的イデオロギーを混同し、ダーウィンの理論に反対する。ダーウィンの進化論と宗教や神への信仰は両立しないという誤った信念が、インテリジェントデザインの出現の理由の一つである。インテリジェントデザインは、生命の発展の過程としての偶然性についての進化論の立場に反対する見方をとり、有る人々にとっては、デザイナー神の一種が自然観の発展の特定時点で介入したことを意味する。進化論の代替理論としてのインテリジェントデザインは全然、科学的議論ではない。インテリジェントデザインの、哲学および神学についての役割および影響を論じる必要がある。」とMarc Leclerc神父は述べた。

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, a professor of theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, said, "No evolutionary mechanism is opposed to the affirmation that God wanted and, therefore, created humankind."

"Basically, evolution is the way in which God created" the cosmos, he added.

ローマのPontifical University of the Holy Crossの神学教授であるGiuseppe Tanzella-Nitti神父は、「神が望み、人間を創造したという確認と、進化メカニズムは対立しない。基本的には、進化は神が宇宙を創造した方法である。」と述べた。

The conference will look at "a correct exegesis" of biblical accounts of creation, said Father Leclerc.

「国際会議は創造についての聖書の記述の正しい解釈を見ることになる」とMarc Leclerc神父は述べた。

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the author of Genesis was not trying to explain the scientific origins of nature, but rather to respond to the theological question "What meaning does mankind have in the cosmos?"

教皇文化評議会議長であるGianfranco Ravasi大司教は「創世記の著者は、自然界の科学的な起源について説明しようとはしていない。むしろ、宇宙における人類の意味という神学的問いに応えようとしたものだ。」と述べた。

Father Leclerc said that "people of faith, even philosophers, can see God's presence" in the world and recognize he has a plan for humanity.

He said, "We believe God intervenes, but he doesn't come like a 'deus ex machina,'" -- referring to the device in ancient Greek and Roman drama of a god descending to miraculously save the day.

One cannot say God intervenes to fill in the gaps in scientific theories, because that would be to confuse two separate disciplines -- religion and science -- which "is, in my opinion, totally unacceptable," said the Jesuit.

「信仰の人々は、哲学者であっても、世界の中に神の存在を見ることができ、人類のために神が立てた計画を認識できる。我々は神の介入を信じているが、しかし、神が奇跡的に救うというギリシャやローマの演劇装置たるデウスエクスマキナのようには神は顕現しないと考えている。科学の隙間を埋めるように神が介入するとは誰も言えない。というのは、それは宗教と科学という2つの分たれた分野を混同するものだからである。そのような混同は私としては認められない。」とMarc Leclerc神父は述べた。

Father Tanzella-Nitti criticized intelligent design's method of using empirical data or evidence to prove the existence or intentions of an intelligent creator.

"When the Christian theology of creation says an intelligent creator exists and this creator has an intelligent plan for the world, it is simply saying that people of faith share the belief that the essential and ultimate meaning of the world is the creative intention of an intelligent creator," he said.

神学教授Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti神父は、経験的データや証拠を用いてインテリジェントな創造主の存在や意図を証明しようとする、インテリジェントデザインの方法論を批判した。「創造についてのキリスト教神学が『インテリジェントな創造主が存在して、この創造主が世界についてのインテリジェントな計画を持っている』と言うのは、『信仰の人々が世界の不可欠かつ究極の意味がインテリジェントな創造主の創造的意図であるという信念を共有している』ということを言っているのだ。」と述べた。

[Carol Glatz: "Vatican conference will give intelligent design critical study" (2009/02/10) on Catholic News Service]
インテリジェントデザイン運動の主張のひとつに「Critical Analysis of Evolution(進化論を批判的に分析)」というのがある。だったら、当然、「critical study of the theory of intelligent design(インテリジェントデザインの批判的検討)」も歓迎すべきもののはず....なのだが、2009年2月12日時点での、インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Institute公式ブログは反応していない。
posted by Kumicit at 2009/02/13 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Vatican | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



The Associated Pressによれば、教皇ベネディクト16世は、聖書の字義どおりの解釈を行う原理主義者を批判した:
[Vatican, ally defend legitimacy of evolution (2008/09/16) by The Associated Press on International Herald Tribune]

VATICAN CITY: A professor at a Vatican-sponsored university expressed dismay Tuesday that some Christian groups reject the theory of evolution — implicitly criticizing the literal interpretation of the Bible.


Further emphasizing the official Catholic stance, a Vatican official restated the Church position that evolution is not incompatible with faith.


Both men spoke at a press conference ahead of a March event aimed at fostering dialogue between religion and science, and appraising evolution 150 years after Charles Darwin's landmark "On the Origin of Species."



Pope Benedict XVI warned last week against fundamentalists' literal interpretations of the Bible. The pontiff told a gathering of intellectuals and academics in Paris that the structure of the Bible "excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism. In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text," Benedict said.

Benedict, in a book published last year, praised scientific progress, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions that science alone cannot answer. In the book, he stopped short of endorsing what is known as "intelligent design."



Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, an influential cardinal considered close to Benedict, has condemned a U.S. federal court decision that barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching intelligent design in biology class.

教皇ベネディクトに近いと考えられるウィーン枢機卿Christoph Schoenbornは、米国Pennsylvania学区の生物学の授業でインテリジェントデザインを教えることを禁じた米国連邦地方裁判所判決を批判した。

Schoenborn has said he wants to correct what he says is a widespread misconception that the Catholic Church has given blanket endorsement to Darwin's theories.

Christoph Schoenborn枢機卿は、カトリック教会がダーウィンの理論に包括的な支持を与えたという広範囲にわたる誤解を訂正したかったのだと述べた。
[Carol Glatz: "EVOLUTION-CONGRESS -- Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design" (2008/09/16) on Catholic News Service]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.


The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

教皇庁文化評議会とローマのPontifical Gregorian UniversityとインディアナのUniversity of Notre Dameは、チャールズ・ダーウィンの"種の起源"の出版150周年の記念するイベントのひとつとして、3月3-7日にローマで国際会議を開催する。

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

Pontifical Gregorian Universityの哲学教授であるイエズス会Marc Leclerc神父は、9月16日にCatholic News Serviceに対して「オーガナイザーたちは厳格に科学な会議を開催し、最新の科学的発見とともに論理的哲学と神学を議論したい」と述べた。

He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design.

科学あるいは哲学あるいは神学として批判的に定義できない議論は会議には不適切であり、従って、この理由により創造論やインテリジェントデザインの支持者を会議に招こうとは考えていないとMarc Leclerc神父は述べた。

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.

教皇庁文化評議会議長であるGianfranco Ravasi大司教は、「進化論争のもう一方の極端である、進化論の科学的概念と自然選択の過度な支持者も招かれない」と述べた。

He reiterated that evolutionary theory "is not incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible's message."

Gianfranco Ravasi大司教は「進化論がカトリック教会の教義や聖書のメッセージと相いれないことはない」と繰り返した。

[Catholic Church to hold debate on God and evolution (2008/09/16) on Times Online]

The day after the Church of England issued an “apology” for having “misunderstood” the work of Charles Darwin, the Vatican has announced that it will organise a debate on the thorny question of Christian belief and the theory of evolution.



The organisers said today that the Roman Catholic Church had never condemned either evolution or Charles Darwin. Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said that evolution was not “a priori incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church, with the message of the Bible”. He added that On the Origin of the Species had never featured on the “index”, a list of books once banned by the Roman Catholic Church as it was considered that their contents could endanger the morals of believers.

今日、会議の主催者は、ローマカトリック教会が進化論やチャールズ・ダーウィンをこれまで非難しなかったと述べた。教皇庁文化評議会議長であるMonsignor Gianfranco Ravasiは「進化論はアプリオリにはカトリック教会の教義や聖書のメッセージと相容れないものではない」と述べた。Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasiは、内容がそれを信じたものの倫理を損なうと考えられるものとして、ローマカトリック教会が禁じた本のリストである"index"に、"種の起源"が載ったことはないと述べた。

posted by Kumicit at 2008/09/20 08:39 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Vatican | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



2008年5月13日付のCatholic News AgencyAsscoiated Pressなどの報道によれば、バチカン観測所長José Gabriel Funes神父が「地球外生命の存在を信じることは、カトリックの教義に反しない」と述べた:
Vatican City, May 13, 2008 / 01:59 pm (CNA).- The Director of the Vatican's Observatory, Fr. José Gabriel Funes, said in an interview with the Vatican daily, L'Osservatore Romano, that believing in the possible existence of extraterrestrial life is not opposed to Catholic doctrine.

バチカン観測所長José Gabriel Funes神父は、バチカン日刊紙L'Osservatore Romanoとのインタビューで、地球外生命の存在を信じることは、カトリックの教義に反しないと述べた。


Regarding the beginning of the universe, Fr. Funes says that he personally believes that the "big bang" theory seems to him the most plausible, and that it does not contradict the Bible. "We cannot ask the Bible for a scientific answer here. At the same time, we don't know if in a near future the 'Big Bang' theory will be superseded by a more complete and precise explanation of the origin of the universe."

José Gabriel Funes神父は、「宇宙の始まりについて、個人的にはビッグバン理論がもっとも尤もらしいと思われる。そして、それは聖書に反しない。聖書に科学的な答えは求められない。同時に、近い未来に、ビッグバン理論や宇宙の起源について、より複雑かつ正確な説明に取って代わられるかどうか、わからない。」と述べた。


Asked is he sees a contradiction between the Catholic faith and believing in aliens, he said, "I think there isn't (a contradiction). Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures over the earth, so there could be other beings, even intelligent (beings), created by God. This is not in contradiction with our faith, because we cannot establish limits to God's creative freedom. To say it with St. Francis, if we can consider some earthly creatures as 'brothers' or 'sisters', why could we not speak of a 'brother alien'? He would also belong to the creation."


[Believing in aliens not opposed to Christianity, Vatican’s top astronomer says (2008/05/13) Catholic News Agency]

==> 忘却からの帰還:火星に生命がいるかどうかが信仰の問題になるのかな? (2007/08/28)

インテリジェントデザインを批判する前所長Dr. George Coyneの退任を喜んだインテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery InstituteのBruce Chapman所長だったが...

==>忘却からの帰還:バチカン観測所長の交替を喜ぶDiscovery Institute所長 (2006/08/24)

posted by Kumicit at 2008/05/15 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Vatican | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする


ひきつづき Ratzinger 1990


Feyerabendに絡んだ記述については、これはこれでひとつの見識で、そこにケチをつける必要はないと思う。ただし、C.F. Von Weizsackerを引用する形で、福音主義者たちの「Darwin to Hilter」と変わらない「Galileo to Atomic Bomb」という主張もあるという言及をしていることは気がかり。

[メモ「Ratzinger 1990」 (2008/01/23)]
他の人々がどう見ているのか、scienceblogs.comの巡回先を見回してみたが、取り上げているのはJohn S. Wilkinsだけだった:
In the speech, Ratzinger quoted an Austrian philosopher who said the ruling was "rational and just".
Said philosopher was Paul K Feyerabend, and this has been systematically misrepresented. Here is my reading:

講演でRatzingerはオーストラリアの哲学者が判決を「合理的で正当である」と引用した。その哲学者はPaul K. Feyerabendであり、系統的に歪曲して提示している。私が読んだところでは:

Feyerabend was playing out a reductio ad absurdum against rationalists in the philosophy of science. These folk argue that science is all about the application, rationally, of the scientific method. But there's a problem - there is no such eternal beast, only the standards of rationality that apply at the time. According to the rationalists, Cardinal Bellarmine, who prosecuted Galileo, was actually right, said Feyerabend. Galileo, on the other hand, was being "irrational", in that, in the absence of evidence or predictive power that was better than the existing Ptolemaic astronomic system, and without a physics to back him up, he should, if the rationalist view of science were right, have backed down.


He didn't, of course, and in the process started a whole new program of science, especially of physics, which lead to Newton. And that is Feyerabend's point: Bellarmine was being rational, but he was wrong. Galileo was not following the rules, and he turned out to be more right than the rationalists of his day.


Now what use Ratzinger made of Feyerabend I can only guess. If he was appealing to Feyerabend's authority as a secular philosopher, then he has systematically misread Feyerabend (something that is easy to do), but if he was simply pointing out that standards of rational inference are occasionally broken to good effect, and therefore that one need not be bound by modern rationality in all cases, he is actually quite right. And so one need not condemn the Pope just in virtue of that one claim (I am sure there are one or two other claims under attack). To do that would be ahistorical, unfair, and ill-informed.


[John S. Wilkins :"A plea for the pope" (2008/01/17) on Evolving Thoughts]
Feyerabendの引用については、非難の必要があるとは考えないというのがJohn S. Wilkns(University of Queenslandでポスドク中)の意見。


しかし、C.F. Von Weizsackerを引用した「“very direct path” that leads from Galileo to the atomic bomb.」は問題かもしれない。この点について、John S. Wilknsはコメント欄で、非難するに値すると述べている:
Then it sounds like the Cardinal was in fact playing a number of rhetorical games here:

1. Guilt by association - from Galileo to the atomic bomb? Ergo we should not learn physics?
連座:ガリレオから原子爆弾? それ故に、我々は物理学を学んではいけないのだろうか?

2. Argument from authority: the Church is not anti-knowledge, it's anti-Frankenstein. Sure. Like Bellarmine could foresee any of that.

3. False dichotomy: there's scientific reason and there's the higher rationality of the Church.

All of that is pretty crappy and deserves to be attacked, but on that one point about Feyerabend, the objection is misplaced.

Posted by: John S. Wilkins | January 17, 2008 4:50 AM


... In the first place, like most of his adversaries, Galileo made no distinction between the scientific approach to natural phenomena and a reflection on nature, of the philosophical order, which that approach generally calls for. That is why he rejected the suggestion made to him to present the Copernican system as a hypothesis, inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by irrefutable proof. Such therefore, was an exigency of the experimental method of which he was the inspired founder.


Secondly, the geocentric representation of the world was commonly admitted in the culture of the time as fully agreeing with the teaching of the Bible of which certain expressions, taken literally seemed to affirm geocentrism. The problem posed by theologians of that age was, therefore, that of the compatibility between heliocentrism and Scripture.


[L'Osservatore Romano, 4 Nov 1992 (quoted)]



posted by Kumicit at 2008/01/24 01:49 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Vatican | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする


メモ「Ratzinger 1990」

とりあえず、Joseph Ratzinger枢機卿の1990年の記述を見てみる。といっても、Kumicitはイタリア語は無理なので、National Catholic Reporterの英訳版だけど。

==>John L Allen:Ratzinger's 1990 remarks on Galileo (2008/01/14) on National Catholic Reporter

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: "The Crisis of Faith in Science" 1990/03/15 Parma

(Extracts taken from A Turning Point for Europe?" The Church and Modernity in the Europe of Upheavals, Paoline Editions, 1992, pp. 76-79. English translation by NCR.)

In the last decade, creation’s resistance to allowing itself to be manipulated by humanity has emerged as a new element in the overall cultural situation. The question of the limits of science, and the criteria which it must observe, has become unavoidable.


Particularly emblematic of this change of intellectual climate, it seems to me, is the different way in which the Galileo case is seen.


This episode, which was little considered in the 18th century, was elevated to a myth of the Enlightenment in the century that followed. Galileo appeared as a victim of that medieval obscurantism that endures in the Church. Good and evil were sharply distinguished. On the one hand, we find the Inquisition: a power that incarnates superstition, the adversary of freedom and conscience. On the other, there’s natural science represented by Galileo: the force of progress and liberation of humanity from the chains of ignorance that kept it impotent in the face of nature. The star of modernity shines in the dark night of medieval obscurity.


Today, things have changed.

According to [Ernst] Bloch, the heliocentric system – just like the geocentric – is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: “From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.”


Curiously, it was precisely Bloch, with his Romantic Marxism, who was among the first to openly oppose the [Galileo] myth, offering a new interpretation of what happened: The advantage of the heliocentric system over the geocentric, he suggested, does not consist in a greater correspondence to objective truth, but solely in the fact that it offers us greater ease of calculation. To this point, Bloch follows solely a modern conception of natural science. What is surprising, however, is the conclusion he draws: “Once the relativity of movement is taken for granted, an ancient human and Christian system of reference has no right to interference in astronomic calculations and their heliocentric simplification; however, it has the right to remain faithful to its method of preserving the earth in relation to human dignity, and to order the world with regard to what will happen and what has happened in the world.”


If both the spheres of conscience are once again clearly distinguished among themselves under their respective methodological profiles, recognizing both their limits and their respective rights, then the synthetic judgment of the agnostic-skeptic philosopher P. Feyerabend appears much more drastic. He writes: “The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Gaileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.”


From the point of view of the concrete consequences of the turning point Galileo represents, however, C.F. Von Weizsacker takes another step forward, when he identifies a “very direct path” that leads from Galileo to the atomic bomb.

ガリレオが提示した転回点の具体的な結果の観点から、しかし、C.F. Von Weizsackerは、ガリレオから原子爆弾に至る直接的なつながりを特定したとき、さらに一歩前進しました。

To my great surprise, in a recent interview on the Galileo case, I was not asked a question like, ‘Why did the Church try to get in the way of the development of modern science?’, but rather exactly the opposite, that is: ‘Why didn’t the church take a more clear position against the disasters that would inevitably follow, once Galileo had opened Pandora’s box?’


It would be absurd, on the basis of these affirmations, to construct a hurried apologetics. The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality, but from its fundamental affirmation and from being inscribed in a still greater form of reason ...


Here, I wished to recall a symptomatic case that illustrates the extent to which modernity’s doubts about itself have grown today in science and technology.

ファイヤーアーベントに絡んだ記述については、これはこれでひとつの見識で、そこにケチをつける必要はないと思う。ただし、C.F. Von Weizsackerを引用する形で、福音主義者たちの「Darwin to Hilter」[ie CoralRidge]と変わらない「Galileo to Atomic Bomb」という主張もあるという言及をしていることは気がかり。

posted by Kumicit at 2008/01/23 00:42 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Vatican | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする