Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Catholic News Service reports:
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."
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.
And then there's this weird statement:
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.
An overly scientific conception of a scientific theory? What a strange concept. I suspect that was the reporter freelancing a bit and not having a clue what she's talking about. But there's a lot of other statements in the article that are encouraging:
Gennaro Auletta, professor of philosophy at the Gregorian and head of the STOQ project, said organizers hope the encounter will help theologians and philosophers be "a bit more humble and learn to listen a bit more" to what science is unveiling about humanity and the world.Auletta said Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have expressed "a fundamental interest" in the theory of biological evolution. However, the pontiffs' hopes that Catholics would gain greater understanding of the issues has not yet materialized, he said.
Phillip Sloan, a professor at Notre Dame, told the press conference the evolution debate, "especially in the United States, has been taking place without a strong Catholic presence ... and the discourse has suffered accordingly."
While there has been Catholic commentary on the compatibility of faith and evolutionary theories, there is no definitive written source to which people can refer to learn the church's position, he said.
Sloan said he hoped the March conference and other initiatives planned by Notre Dame and the Vatican would foster the development of "informed Catholic thought" on the subject.
This could be quite interesting to watch.
Politics
Comments
I wonder if they have invited Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala to participate in this meeting.
Posted by: SLC | September 27, 2008 9:35 AM
Seems kind of pointless to have a congress on the evolution debate if you're only going to invite people who agree with you. The "debate" part doesn't exactly fit....
Posted by: Gretchen | September 27, 2008 10:19 AM
Gretchen: They are not examining ID because that is not a debate: The creationists lost. They are discussing the intersection of science with the Catholic faith. This is why philosophers and theologians are invited, but not crackpots.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 27, 2008 10:40 AM
Yes, kehrsam, but they're also not inviting "proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection." That, to me, says they're not interested in hearing anything about evolution that might challenge their faith. They might hear, for example, that there is no reason to assume there is any part of a human that didn't evolve-- namely, a soul.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 27, 2008 10:44 AM
That 1st group is often not discernable from the second.
Posted by: GH | September 27, 2008 10:44 AM
I especially like the part that goes:
"..that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries." [emphasis mine]
Does this mean that Father LeClerc* (and the Catholic Church) didn't invite the creationists because they percieve creationism to be rrational?
If so, then it doesn't look good for those "crazy" creationsists hopes of unifying the major religions against the "evil Darwinists" - DJ
*nominative determinism in action?
Posted by: DingoJack | September 27, 2008 10:52 AM
Gretchen: by all means condemn the Vaticaniosi after the event if it turns out to be a sham, but why condemn them beforehand? It is inappropriate to fixate on the wording of the "overly scientific" comment, because this has come through the muddiness of both translation and reportage.
I'm inclined to assume that they meant that they don't want to talk about purely scientific topics, they're interested in the intersection of their religion and/or theology and the well-accepted science of evolution by natural selection. That's not anti-science, it's just trying to focus on the topic of the event.
Let's welcome the fact that the Catholic Church is moving in the right direction on this topic rather than condemning them for not moving twenty times faster.
Ridicule them for what they have done, not what you think think they might do.
Posted by: Sam C | September 27, 2008 12:13 PM
I think, "proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection," is just the PC term for atheists.
Posted by: Brandon | September 27, 2008 1:09 PM
Brandon, guess that contrasts with the Roman Catholic Church's favoured conception, parthenogenesis. - ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 27, 2008 1:17 PM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | September 27, 2008 2:17 PM
SLC,
Francisco Ayala is indeed participating. Other speakers include Douglas Futuyma, Lynn Margulis, and Simon Conway Morris. While Cardinal Schönborn is on the Committee of Honour, so is Templeton Prize winner Prof. Michal Heller, who is staunchly anti-ID.
Posted by: James F | September 27, 2008 3:10 PM
Re James F
Lynn Margulis? Here's an example of a formally productive scientist who has turned into a nutjob. She's an HIV/AIDS denier. As we sit here today, she couldn't carry Ken Millers' briefcase.
Posted by: SLC | September 27, 2008 3:39 PM
SLC,
Indeed, I would have preferred Ken Miller in a heartbeat. Hopefully she'll stick exclusively to evolutionary mechanisms.
Posted by: James F | September 27, 2008 4:22 PM
Gretchen, we're talking about an organisation that used to set people who disagreed with them on fire. I don't think they really get the whole "debate" thing.
Posted by: James K | September 27, 2008 4:25 PM
Has there been any reaction from the ID/creationist crowd?
Posted by: tresmal | September 27, 2008 4:32 PM
Unfortunately, the topic of evolutionary biology attracts both atheist and creationist crackpots who ignore or otherwise abuse the scientific method to support their ideological/political positions. The only thing worse than a bible-thumping redneck in a science class is an atheist trying to use science to disprove the existence of a god. Thank the Vatican for keeping the issue on a rational track.
Posted by: Biologist Kevin | September 27, 2008 5:21 PM
The only thing worse than a bible-thumping redneck in a science class is an atheist trying to use science to disprove the existence of a god.
Well it disproved the God that didn't make no people from no stinkin monkeys.
Thank the Vatican for keeping the issue on a rational track.
Yes their God was disproved when people figured out that the Earth orbits the sun. Now they have a new God. Also their God that didn't make no people from no stinkin monkeys was disproved too.
Posted by: 386sx | September 27, 2008 6:55 PM
The only thing worse than a bible-thumping redneck in a science class is an atheist trying to use science to disprove the existence of a god.
Yeah really. If one is going to try and disprove the existence of a god, science is the worst possible thing that one could use. One should use tiddlywinks! Much better!!
Posted by: 386sx | September 27, 2008 7:01 PM
Somebody needs to go tell Pharyngula to keep its gates locked at night.
Posted by: Brandon | September 27, 2008 8:01 PM
Isn't that what one uses for proving the existence of a god? Tiddlywinks? I wondwr why nobody can use science for proving the existence of a god. Hrmmmm...
Posted by: 386sx | September 27, 2008 9:02 PM
For the same reason science cannot be used to disprove the existence of a god - you need a testable hypothesis.
Posted by: Biologist Kevin | September 27, 2008 9:10 PM
Biologist Kevin, if your claim is that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, then that's a really big claim to make, and not the sort of thing you should be dogmatic about.
Posted by: Dave2 | September 27, 2008 10:57 PM
Interesting, his Wikipedia bio says:
Posted by: Dr X | September 27, 2008 11:17 PM
The 'overly' scientific view huh? Sheesh, that's just weak.
Thats worse than a 'bible thumping redneck'? Have you seen the problems these 'bible thumping rednecks' cause in schoolboards across the country? Haven't seen much of that from the atheist side.
And if God does/does not exist why wouldn't you use science? Or are youan outside the realm fellow even among the real world claims posited by many religions?
These are people who think a cracker turns into a body. There is nothing rational about them and the fact they want to intermingle personal superstition with science gets them little credit. They get some credit for trying to absorb the science but the babble they will produce won't be worth much.
Posted by: JimC | September 28, 2008 12:09 AM
There are plenty of testable hypotheses about the specific actions and attributes assigned to a god that can be tested.
Posted by: Tulse | September 28, 2008 12:30 AM
And if God does/does not exist why wouldn't you use science? Or are youan outside the realm fellow even among the real world claims posited by many religions?
I think what he means is that after you exclude all the testable hypotheses about gods, then you don't have any testable hypotheses about gods anymore.
You can't prove the existence of a god if you don't have a testable hypothesis, so just remove all the testable hypotheses, and then you don't have a testable hypothesis left over. Just keep removing the testable hypotheses until there aren't any.
So if you ever find a testable hypothesis about a god, then don't use it because if a god is defined as something for which there is no testable hypothesis, then you won't be able to use it.
Posted by: 386sx | September 28, 2008 12:54 AM
There are plenty of testable hypotheses about the specific actions and attributes assigned to a god that can be tested.
Yes, but a god is something for which there is no testable hypothesis, so you won't be able to use any of those.
Posted by: 386sx | September 28, 2008 1:08 AM
Then test your hypothesis, analyze your data and publish your findings, sharing your data with the rest of us, as scientists should.
PS The bible isn't data.
Posted by: Biologist Kevin | September 28, 2008 1:13 AM
If a God says he did A and we can proof that he didn't did A, then it kinda disproves that God
Posted by: Draconiz | September 28, 2008 9:58 AM
Nonsense. For example, Thor is allegedly responsible for lightning and thunder, but we can demonstrate that those are natural phenomena.
Perhaps you mean that the Christian god as usually conceived involves no testable hypotheses. But that goes against the whole notion of natural theology, of the world revealing the qualities of god.
In any case, one could also argue that there are not testable hypotheses for pixies, or invisible pink unicorns. Are you suggesting that we should take the notion of the Christian god as seriously of those proposals? If so, I agree.
Posted by: Tulse | September 28, 2008 11:45 AM
"If one is going to try and disprove the existence of a god, science is the worst possible thing that one could use. One should use tiddlywinks! Much better!!" - 386sx
Is there a significant difference between tiddlywinks and the Urim and Thummim - the "holy dice" of the Old Testament?
Posted by: Paul Burnett | September 28, 2008 12:30 PM
So Albert was wrong, god really DID play dice with the universe! -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 28, 2008 12:33 PM
well who cares what the mary-worshiping idolitars are gonna do?! They'rs not even christians anyway, they are more like pagans dressed in robes instead of furs.
with fancy italian shoes instead of boots.
Posted by: Kevin | September 28, 2008 11:32 PM
Gee, Kevin, those non-Christians canonized your New Testament for you. Are you gonna take their word for it, or go back through it, throwing out the books that don't belong (I hear 2 Peter is crap)?
Posted by: Dave2 | September 29, 2008 3:07 AM
"the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited."
i guess this means dr. meyers is not invited.
Posted by: karen marie | September 29, 2008 11:31 AM
THE ROMAN POPE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AS AN AGENT OF PIAPS!!!!!
Posted by: RALPH | September 29, 2008 11:57 AM
NO CREATIONISTS, I GUESS THAT LEAVES SARAH PALIN OUT OF THE DISCUSSION. SHE BELIEVES FRED AND WILMA LIVED WITH A PET NAMED DINO>
Posted by: mark ancker | September 29, 2008 11:41 PM
My dear Ralph and Mark,
Half way up the left-hand side of your keyboard you will find a button marked "Caps Lock" (below one marked "Tab", but above one marked "Shift").
If you push it, magically, your typing will be in lowercase letters.
Hope this post didn't have too many long words or difficult concepts for you. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 30, 2008 3:14 AM
I wonder how many people who write these comments really know what the Catholic Church teaches. I was educated in Catholic schools and was always taught about evolution in science class.Always. (I'm talking about the 60s and 70s, so this is not something new) The Bible stories about Adam and Eve were taught in religion class. We understood that we could believe in God and the science of evolution, too. We were never taught to think of Darwin's theory as heresy. Never. People need to distinguish between fundamentalists and Catholics. You saw above that many fundamentalists don't even consider us Christians. The Church has many "old-fashioned" ideas, but it is not anti-intellectual or anti-science. You can agree with the Pope or not, but you can't deny that he is an incredibly educated,cultured man. And, the Jesuits are among the greatest educators in the world. Catholics are NOT the anti-science crowd some readers seem to think.
Posted by: angie | September 30, 2008 5:49 AM