[Father George Coyne] They had no curiosity
about how old was the universe
how did various things come to be.
In fact, the stylistic view of the Genesis
accounts of the creation of the world and
everything in it, the style shows very
clearly that they were trying to establish
a kind of poetic structure to say that God
was the source of all things.
That's why he did it in 6 days.
And that's why of you interpret it
scientifically, you get all screwed up.
Because light came on the first day
but the sun and the moon on the 4th day.
Well the reason light had to come on the
first day is because you had to have a day
structure. That's why at the end of each
day of creation, and there was night and
there was day. That's a poetic expression.
That God, this was a structured kind of thing.
Each thing in the universe had a very
special, God had a very special affection
for it. In other words, it's a literary
style in order to teach something
that is true but it's not scientific.
So that's why I get upset.
[Richard Dawkins] But if the book of Genesis
was written by fallible humans who didn't
really know anything, in what sense is it
God speaking to us?
[Coyne] That's a very good question.
We really truly believe that God,
working through these various cultures
that these writers were inspired to give
the foundations for a religious tradition.
What that inspiration means,
what it doesn't mean, is God was not dictating
to these people. That's clearly absurd to
think that. But they were people of faith
in a deep religious tradition, and that God was
really working with them, ok, through
their faith and creating a literature
that would be foundational for
future religious belief.
I mean to go into it in more detail I'm
afraid I studied it about 45 or 50 years ago.
So I could not recreate...
[Dawkins] Let's switch to another topic. [Coyne] Yeah, sure.
The statement by Pope John Paul II in 1996
could you tell me a bit more about that?
[Coyne] Well that statement truly came at
a very epical time. It was a statement made
as best I recall, the message was given to
the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the
occasion of a very significant meeting on
what it was called is Origins. And there
were people from America from NASA.
There were imminent scientists there
discussing evolutionary theory,
expansion of the universe, etc.
It was a scientific gathering.
And the Pope addressed them.
So you have to see the background as
being very significant. This was an
eminent group of international scientists
gathered to discuss these very important
scientific questions.
On that occasion, the Pope wished to make
it clear that after all this period of time,
and especially the transition from
Pope Pius XII who had said, in Humani generis,
I'm not quoting exactly , but that evolution
is one of several possibilities for explaining.
Whether he was right or wrong
in saying that, I'm not judging.
But he said it back maybe 2 or 3 decades
before 1996 when we knew less, but we knew
quite a bit about evolution even in that
time. At any rate, John Paul II wished to
update us frankly. To put it in a very
succinct way. He wanted to update the
church's view of what scientists had
accomplished. He made it very clear because
he cited several of the scientific disciplines.
He said the point is there's a convergence
here to this best scientific explanation.
the theory of evolution. There's a convergence among
many very significant disciplines: geology, paleontology,
molecular biology, cosmology, astrophysics
that they all converge with many differences
because we are still, as all of us will admit,
you know, our pilgrimage is one of people that are
ignorant and hopefully growing less
ingnorant as we learn more.
But that the best scientific explanation from all
of these disciplines together was evolution.
And I think it was a very significant statement.
[Dawkins] Yeah, me too.
[Coyne] It came too late.
I mean i will be honest with you Richard.
My reaction, as a believing Catholic and scientist,
was "So what?"
[Coyne] We've know this for 50 years. [Dawkins] Yes.
That this was the best scientific explanation.
I really honestly agree with that.
So what? Because many times the church
for very good reasons, I'm not
faulting the church mind you, but
for very good reason it trails behind
in making a declaration like this.
It trails behind by too long a period
of time in absorbing scientific culture and then
judging it and speaking out on it, you know?
[Dawkins] Some might say to call it the
best scientific explanation is too
restrictive. That what he was in fact
saying is that the scientific explanation
is the best explanation.
[Coyne] Yes I think that's correct.
It's the best explanation, but from
within a scientific methodology because
he immediately goes on to talk about the
philosophical and theological implications in all of this.
[Dawkins] And we talked about that.
[Coyne] Many of us will diverge on when
you get to that stage.
[Dawkins] Yes. What do you think is the appeal
of the idea of intelligent design or creationism?
[Coyne] Well it follows upon this very last
point that we're making. The distintion
between the scientific methodology and
the philosophical, theological implications
which you cannot deny that we human beings
are kind of driven either to deny or assert
that there are philosophical and theological
implications from our scientific results.
What intelligent design, and I speak from
a very American point of view,
because I think at least in its origins
it's a very kind of American phenomenon,
in fact I call it the intelligent design movement.
And what it is, it's a mistaken attempt to try
and use science to establish the,
what I call the implications of science.
That is going beyond science to the
philosophical theological interpretation.
So what intelligent design does, it begins
with biology. And I'm not a biologist so
you correct me. But they offer various
possibilities. You know, the blood clotting
system in the human being.
And various...
[Dawkins] Well they're effectively looking for gaps
[Dawkins] in present scientific understanding. [Coyne] That's correct. Yeah.
[Dawkins] (unintelligible) [Coyne] They say that there are irreducibly
[Coyne] complex biological systems, and you can
explain that better than I can,
that cannot be explained within the
scientific method and require an intelligent designer.
And in every case that they have suggested,
and Ken Miller has, as you know,
analyzed each of these cases and you have
I'm sure too. But Ken Miller, within the
Catholic tradition, as a biologist simply
said none of it holds up. We can explain it,
if you carefully examine what evolution
does you can explain this. Evolution is creative.
It uses an organism, you know, that preexisted
the current irreducibly complex organism,
as they call it, it takes this organism
which had one function before and it
integrates it into another function.
Evolution is very creative that way.
The fault of intelligent design,
the fundamental fault,
is that it steps outside scientific methodology
and will not acknowledge it's doing it.
It's a religious movement.
It clearly is. Intrinsically judged,
and in the judicial system in the
United States, whenever it has come
before a court it's been judged such.
And therefore cannot be taught
in the public school system in the
United States because it's a religious movement.
The other I'd like to say, I think, absurdity of
intelligent design, is in its attempt to
bring God into the picture it creates,
and I really mean creates a God,
it's not the God I believe in.
It's a God who's a designer.
I mean, you know, I've been to, you know,
Milan in Italy , one of the great capitals of
designing, you know, fashion clothes and all,
we design cars, we design everything.
The God I believe in is not that kind of
designer, an engineer, or someone that
has to be continually, you know, sort of touching up
the universe because it's not running the way
he wanted it to run, he or she.
I think it not only does it not admit that
it's stepping outside of science, when it
steps into religion, it's really an absurd religious