Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
Michael Heller, this year's Templeton Prize winner, may be more willing to merge science and religion than many scientists are, but he's no pal of ID. In a statement at the press conference announcing the award, he explained:
Adherents of the so-called intelligent design ideology commit a grave theological error. They claim that scientific theories, that ascribe the great role to chance and random events in the evolutionary processes, should be replaced, or supplemented, by theories acknowledging the thread of intelligent design in the universe. Such views are theologically erroneous. They implicitly revive the old manicheistic error postulating the existence of two forces acting against each other: God and an inert matter; in this case, chance and intelligent design. There is no opposition here.Heller is a Catholic priest and a professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Krakow, so he ought to know something on the subject.
The Templeton Prize is a $1.6 million prize, given to promote a vision of the compatibility of science and religion. That work has come in for criticism when it seemed like they were looking for scientific proof of theological claims, and for accepting almost any sort of invocation of the anthropic principle as if it were theologically relevant.
Templeton backed ID early on, but has since sworn it off. In a statement, they explained:
The John Templeton Foundation does not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge. In addition, we do not support political agendas such as movements to determine (one way or the other) what qualified educators should or should not teach in public schools.When Templeton offered a chance for IDolators to apply for research grants, "they never came in," explained Templeton's Charles L. Harper. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
Comments
I have argued to those who don't like the aspect of chance in evolution that "Random chance is indistinguishable from the hand of God". Some get really pissed off at that while others reflect and go "Hmmm".
Posted by: Cappy | March 12, 2008 4:42 PM
Have you tried arguing that the Hand of God is indistinguishable from random chance?
Posted by: csrster | March 13, 2008 6:45 AM
I question whether chance even exists. Not that I have the answer, but randomness, at best, is a mathematical model we impose on events we can't fully understand, or measure, or don't need to fully understand in greater detail. Instead of "suddenly a miracle occurs," some say "suddenly randomness occurs." Randomness is just another God of the Gaps. Is that what people mean by "the Hand of God is indistinguishable from random chance"?
Posted by: Dave | March 13, 2008 1:23 PM
"Chance" is a valid enough concept, though philosophers argue over what exactly we mean by randomness. Within quantum mechanics, non-determinism cannot be ascribed to insufficient information; it is a core feature of the system. And some mutational events in biology are driven by reactions at a quantum level.
Whether those sorts of events are indistinguishable from the Hand of God is hard to say. Certainly an omnipotent, omniscient deity could do anything, so it may be indistinguishable, but if that interference skewed outcomes in detectable ways, you might be able to distinguish between hypotheses.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | March 13, 2008 2:13 PM
Heller is a Catholic priest and a professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Krakow, so he ought to know something on the subject.
Well I should hope so. Of coarse there is no opposition between inert matter and God; in this case, chance and intelligent design. And Heller is just the man who ought to know!
Posted by: 386sx | March 13, 2008 3:02 PM
Adherents of the so-called intelligent design ideology commit a grave theological error.
Hrmm somebody should go tell them they commit a grave theological error. Come on help us out, Pontifical Academy of Theology!
Posted by: 386sx | March 13, 2008 4:05 PM
Heller's premises are that God exists; He created the universe; He is a person and not just and abstract force; and is involved in every aspect of existence, both spiritual and material. Heller's conclusions flow from these premises plus his studies of cosmology. As to whether any school of ID thought is committing a grave theological error, Heller is certainly highly qualified to comment, but should we ascribe infallibility (i.e., protected from error by the Holy Spirit) to his remarks? Papal infallibility is claimed to apply to matters of faith and morals, not cosmology. If memory serves me well, the church got a bit tangled up on that point back in the 1600s.
Posted by: Dave | March 14, 2008 7:44 AM
His NPR interview yesterday made me scream out loud - every stupid excuse in the book. Made for a good conversation with my kids in the car, though.
Posted by: Coturnix | March 14, 2008 1:41 PM
Stardust says: Father Michal Heller is correct. We are all atoms, derivatives of the gases of the big bang and that applies to the rest of the universe as well. It took a bit of time, chance and DIRECTION [ID} to get homo sapiens {the animal} to this stage of development. Reincarnationsts know souls [the mind] join the body for spiritual advancement of the soul.
Some scientists. particularly biologists,believe they know all of natures laws and can become the gods of ethics, morality and philosophy . Humility please!
Posted by: charles fisenne | March 19, 2008 10:05 AM
Are you quoting someone named Stardust? If so, where is that quote from, and where does the quoted material start and end?
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | March 19, 2008 6:29 PM