Once again, we've got a different set of statements on evolution from the Vatican. Rev. George Coyne, the director of the Vatican Observatory, slams the Intelligent Design creationists.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Father Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

And also…

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

This is good. I can go along with most of it, although I wish people would stop saying that ID ought to be taught as religion or culture—it's neither. It's an arbitrary construct, as artificial as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a short-term contrivance to get around restrictions in American law.

But, you know, there is another problem of principle. I reject the authority of religion in all matters scientific. I think Cardinal Schönborn was wrong to reject evolution, and his credentials in the church were irrelevant to the matter at hand. Likewise, while it's nice that Coyne is supporting the scientific view, his status as a bigwig in the Catholic church is about as relevant as if he were Chief Clown at the Barnum & Bailey circus. His position as an astronomer is significantly more convincing, but still…astronomy is not evolutionary biology. If we are to encourage respect for legitimate expertise, it defeats the purpose if we then uncritically accept the words of someone whose main claims to fame are regard in an unrelated science and his membership in a hierarchy of medieval metaphysicians who wear funny hats.

Maybe we should just disregard religious authority in all of its forms, even when it says stuff we like.

Also, Coyne should have shut his mouth after criticizing Intelligent Design creationism. What are we supposed to make of this kind of silliness?

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

What does he know of this god? How does he know how it operates? What evidence does he have for any of these vague claims, these peculiar insights into the hypothetical mind of a mythical being? When people purport to speak for gods, we should just pat them on the head and escort them to a nice quiet room for a little lie-down, and maybe give them a damp cloth and a good cup of tea.

We should not treat them as respected authorities…figure of pity would be more like it.