Darwin Wins Point in Rome

In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome - New York Times:

"'If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another,' Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

'But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science,' he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. 'It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious.'"

This belabored point is perhaps of utmost import, with regards to this long-lasting debate. Kuhn suggested in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that science forges new theories by way of introducing paradigm shifts in scientific models. This comes from new, relevant data; increasing sophistication and advances in technology; and after rigorous experimentation, checks and balances, and general scholarly rigamarole in the scientific community.

Facchini is simply suggesting we abide by this methodology--that if a given model does not seem to live up to the standards of science, perhaps we should find an alternative. However, that alternative must meet the scrutiny of science and the scientific community. Creationists and also some purporters of intelligent design, believe that if they can find any problems in Darwin's theory--more specifically, modern evolutionary synthesis--that therefore, "goddidit." This is called God-of-the-Gaps theory and is common sensically invalid, logically or otherwise speaking.

In an earlier post, I formed the arguement that one can believe in a Creator and still accept evolutionary theory as a valid, scientific model. In the afformentioned article, I showed the distinctness of modern evolutionary synthesis as a scientific theory, as opposed to intelligent design: merely a statement of faith, having little or nothing to do with actual science.

The present article seems to agree with that point, by and large, demonstrating the 'evolution' of the Vatican's standpoint on evolutionary science.