The Vatican on Evolution (and yes, also on ID)

In a recent comment reported by Wired, a Vatican cardinal said Thursday that "...the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer", warning that "religion risks turning into 'fundamentalism' if it ignores scientific reason".

The cardinal goes on to say that ..."The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future..."

and:

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."

I like that, the Roman Catholic Church presented as an 'expert voice in humanity'. What did the Pope recommend, oh no, decree regarding birth control? And what about... But I am deviating...;-)

Another voice of the vatican addresses the issue of science vs. Intelligent Design (ID):

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that "evolution was 'more than just a hypothesis'."

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

Well, monsignor, you got it - almost - right: technically, a hypothesis is - and remains - a hypothesis whether there is proof or not. A scientist will never say that "a hypothesis is right" but instead it would be put more like this:

"the probability that the opposite of that hypothesis is true can be regarded as very slim, i.e. below a reasonable margin (usually set at between 1-5% or even lower)". Unfortunately, this is a somewhat technical and counter-intuitive approach to answering a question, and it is exactly that point the creationists feed on: it is just not so simple.

But for a press release from the Vatican, such open support of scientific reason is in itself a major event, although the afore mentioned cardinal does not take this too literally himself as he concludes: "...the universe wasn't made by itself, but has a creator." But he added, "It's important for the faithful to know how science views things to understand better."

So what is it going to be then, creation without the creationists, scientific reason without the application to the "basic question"? I guess we should call it "theological diplomacy" and leave it at that.