Intelligent, rational people everywhere received a boost today from an unexpected place: Vatican City.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly. [...]

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

Poupard went on to say that the story of Genesis was concerned solely with theology, "while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science."

I'm sure many people will be surprised to hear a defense of evolution coming out of the Vatican, but I'm not all that shocked. After all, when I was in first grade, our teacher (a nun) told a classroom full of six-year olds that the story of Adam and Eve was symbolic in nature and shouldn't be taken literally.

Now, if only the Church would adopt a similarly enlightened view on homosexuality, premarital sex, birth control, female ordination, priestly celibacy, and abortion rights...

[NEWS.com.au] Evolution in the bible, says Vatican (via Slashdot)

I first read Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" a little over a year ago, and I thought it was one of the most poorly written books I had ever read. And I loved every minute of it.

My enjoyment of the book had little to do with it's plot. Instead, what drew me in was the same thing that is still drawing people in: the book's wild historical claims about sacred bloodlines and secret societies with celebrity members.

After I finished the book, I tried to read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." After the first 100 pages, two things became readily apparent. First, Brown's novel is essentially an adaptation (i.e., rip-off) of "Holy Blood," and second, the historical claims made in both books are complete fabrications.

Unfortunately, most of the criticism generated by these books has been in the form of "this-stuff-is-false-because-it's-not-in-the-bible"-type nonsense. None of these Christian loyalists could be bothered with something as basic as historical research. As a result, Brown's novel has yet to be effectively debunked in the popular press.

Which is what makes Laura Miller's article ("The Da Vinci crock") on Salon.com such a welcome addition to the debate. Miller outlines the major claims made by Brown, properly attributes them to "Holy Blood," and then explains why they are completely bogus.

In addition, the article points out that Brown now has a personal interest in establishing his claims as nonfiction because he is being sued by the authors of "Holy Blood." If the holy grail and the Priory of Sion are part of the historical record, then his adversaries can hardly claim exclusive ownership of them (which, of course, weakens their lawsuit). And since "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is itself marketed as nonfiction, its authors find themselves walking a tightrope.

For all its flaws, I do still love "The Da Vinci Code." It made for one of the wildest rides a book has ever given me (for as long as I bought into the novel's version of history, anyway). But the process of discovering Brown's sources and losing faith in the whole thing, well, that made for a pretty wild ride, too.

[Salon] The Da Vinci crock