Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
The News Herald ^ | Nov 18, 2005 | NICOLE WINFIELD (AP)

Posted on 11/18/2005 10:14:11 AM PST by shooter223

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted 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."

His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" - whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: intelligentdesign; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-142 next last
ok Freepers ..........have at it
1 posted on 11/18/2005 10:14:12 AM PST by shooter223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shooter223

Someone should hand these folks a copy of Genesis.


2 posted on 11/18/2005 10:16:37 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shooter223

The Vatican has a chief astronomer?


3 posted on 11/18/2005 10:17:21 AM PST by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shooter223

The following can be said about Fr. Coyne's remarks. They are his and not the Vatican's and to Fr. Coyne I would say:

ID arguments have been around as long as Aristotle and they are philosophical in nature. Order or complexity as such is an observable phenomenon and can be scientifically measured and described.

What that order means, I believe takes one into the philosophy of science. Revelation takes us further. Pope Benedict criticized the notion that creation was without direction or order.

Evolutionists themselves can go beyond the scientific evidence and enter the arena of philosophy of science but they often don't acknowledge that transition.


4 posted on 11/18/2005 10:19:28 AM PST by Rampolla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Genesis, as well as much of the bible was written circa" 600bc.
Are you saying nomads knew more about the origins of our world than todays enlightened scientists?


5 posted on 11/18/2005 10:20:17 AM PST by Duffboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Duffboy

Yes indeed, you see it's a little thing called actually having faith.

Genesis, like the rest of the bible, is considered to be divnely inspired.


6 posted on 11/18/2005 10:23:57 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rampolla
ID arguments have been around as long as Aristotle and they are philosophical in nature. Order or complexity as such is an observable phenomenon and can be scientifically measured and described.

Historically, science has inevitably produced natural explanations for the development of that era's contemporary examples of observed order or complexity. If you are to contend that such items are scientific proof of God, then you are conceding that your God shrinks with each such advance.

7 posted on 11/18/2005 10:26:24 AM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shooter223

So, how long do they think it will take God next time around, when He creates the new heaven and new earth? Just curious. Oh, and how long did it take Him to part the Red Sea?


8 posted on 11/18/2005 10:27:09 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past ("The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x5452
Genesis, like the rest of the bible, is considered to be divnely inspired.

But the Catholic Church considers the creation stories to be allegories and in no way literal.

Since EVERY biblical account was written in hindsight, they were written to show God's presence in salvation history and the reflection of the Jewish community that God intervened with His people, through natural events, in the Old Testament.

They are not scientific nor historical documents.

9 posted on 11/18/2005 10:28:52 AM PST by sinkspur (Trust, but vilify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: shooter223

And his scientific points and arguments that life was not intelligently designed are...?

Just more rhetoric.


10 posted on 11/18/2005 10:29:40 AM PST by Elpasser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shooter223

Ah, the Jesuits!!!


11 posted on 11/18/2005 10:30:11 AM PST by OldFriend (The Dems enABLEd DANGER and 3,000 Americans died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x5452
Yes indeed, you see it's a little thing called actually having faith.

I am gratified that there are those who still hold faith in high regard. I too believe that the Lord God Almighty created the Heavens and the Earth. I also believe that the theory of evolution is an acceptable explanation of how God's handiwork functions and adapts to non-optimal conditions.

Further, it is my belief that Intelligent Design is not science in any respect. The very nature of science omits pat answers and ideological cul-de-sacs.

In the final analysis, Intelligent Design is little more than an attempt to "prove" what God demands must be accepted on faith alone. I care not to think of the Lord's response come the final reckoning when these souls stand before him and say, "I believed in you, Lord, because I couldn't think of anything better."

12 posted on 11/18/2005 10:32:17 AM PST by Prime Choice (Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: x5452

The bible was originally called " Hebrew Scriptures, and were never " divinely inspired'. It was simply their story about the journey of the Hebrews, their belief system and their rituals.
It was Christians who took the book, changed its name to " Old Testament".
If I believe I can walk on water on faith, can I ?


13 posted on 11/18/2005 10:32:58 AM PST by Duffboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: x5452

But it's not supposed to be a biology textbook.


14 posted on 11/18/2005 10:34:29 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/2005/07/10/leading-cardinal-redefines-churchs-view-on-evolution/

"Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." -Pope Benedict

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato_en.html


15 posted on 11/18/2005 10:35:50 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Duffboy

You have already illustrated a heroic lack of faith, so how do you propose you could?


16 posted on 11/18/2005 10:37:30 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: x5452
...but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”

Apart from believing it as an act of faith, how does he know that?
17 posted on 11/18/2005 10:40:42 AM PST by BikerNYC (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
The problem is that evolution in the scientific sense isn't what's being taught in schools.

Were it that only the factual evidence surrounding evolution was being taught it would be one thing but instead children are being taught philosophy by their science teachers, and numerous times they're even being taught dated false evidence for evolution.

If that is the norm already, then there's little harm diversifying it.
18 posted on 11/18/2005 10:40:50 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

He's the Pope. o_o


19 posted on 11/18/2005 10:41:24 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Yeah, that works.


20 posted on 11/18/2005 10:42:27 AM PST by BikerNYC (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

We are in fact discussing here the statements made by a vatican employee.

The pope get's discretion over him.


21 posted on 11/18/2005 10:44:29 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: shooter223
"If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Perhaps the 'Theory of Evolution' should also be taught in religion or cultural history classes also. Not many (if any) scientific 'facts' exist to support the 'Theory of Evolution'.

22 posted on 11/18/2005 10:50:19 AM PST by 1_Of_We
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Random mutation isn't scientific either. It's pure speculation, dogma of the religion of nothingness. If random mutation is going to be taught then ID should also be taught.


23 posted on 11/18/2005 10:50:19 AM PST by webboy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. Its a folk tale.


24 posted on 11/18/2005 10:51:18 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/2005/07/10/leading-cardinal-redefines-churchs-view-on-evolution/

"Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary." -Pope Benedict

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20050424_inizio-pontificato_en.html


25 posted on 11/18/2005 10:52:05 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: x5452
“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.”

I don't believe that.

26 posted on 11/18/2005 10:55:31 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: webboy45
Random mutation isn't scientific either. It's pure speculation

Random mutations happen all the time and they can be observed.

27 posted on 11/18/2005 10:55:36 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

That's all well and good, but that doesn't qualify you, or anyone else who doesn't beleive that, to work for the Vatican.


28 posted on 11/18/2005 10:56:43 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Duffboy

That was because Christ, who intervened in nature,
creating food, walking on water(without pontoons mind you), becoming undead, calming storms with his word, said that what we now call the "Old Testament" was indeed Gods word, and that Gods word stands forever and cannot be broken...

the Jews of his time argued with him cause they felt their
word (Old Testament) was Gods word, and argued from it
to try and disprove Jesus (known as the Christ, or anointed one)
Where in the world did you get the idea that the Jews
(other than the unbelieving Jews) thought that the
"Old Testament" was not Gods word?


29 posted on 11/18/2005 10:59:35 AM PST by Getready ((fear not...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Party_Animal
The Vatican has a chief astronomer?

Yep. They even have their own large telescope in Arizona, and a world-class meteorite collection.

30 posted on 11/18/2005 10:59:39 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Indeed, I am without faith as regards the bible , fairy tales, the boogy man and believing I can shoot par golfing.
Call me practical.
Remember, Peter asked Jesus " can walk on water'?
Jesus supposedly replied, when Peter tried it and almost drowned, 'ye. of little faith".
I contend if a person believes he/she can walk on water that person has plenty of faith!


31 posted on 11/18/2005 11:01:24 AM PST by Duffboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: shooter223
Intelligent design is Agnostic Creativism..

Evolution is Dialectic Scientific Material sub-Marxism..

32 posted on 11/18/2005 11:01:37 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x5452

So?


33 posted on 11/18/2005 11:08:40 AM PST by sinkspur (Trust, but vilify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Are you saying Charles Darwin and Karl Marx got together to " fool the masses'? ( the Origin of the Species was published in 1860, well before Marx's 'Communist Manifesto".)


34 posted on 11/18/2005 11:14:16 AM PST by Duffboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Duffboy
Genesis, as well as much of the bible was written circa" 600bc.

The original basis for this late of a date for Genesis authorship, namely, that writing had not evolved until about 1000 BC, is thoroughly discredited.

Cordially,

35 posted on 11/18/2005 11:16:47 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 1_Of_We
Not many (if any) scientific 'facts' exist to support the 'Theory of Evolution'.

False. Here are two definitions, followed by lots of facts. You may not like them, but the entire photograph consists of facts. And that is just the most photogenic of the lot--there are tens of thousand more where those came from.

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)


Your judgement of what is and is not a scientific fact appears to be clouded by religious belief and dogma; here are definitions of those terms as well:

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof


36 posted on 11/18/2005 11:18:14 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Duffboy
[ Are you saying Charles Darwin and Karl Marx got together to " fool the masses'? ( the Origin of the Species was published in 1860, well before Marx's 'Communist Manifesto".) ]

What I sayin is... Is Jesus GOD.?..

If he WAS, he still IS, if he WASN'T he still ISN'T

37 posted on 11/18/2005 11:18:37 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: shooter223

Much of Genesis has its roots in Babylonian mythology - and there are two creation stories in Genesis. Substantial portions of the Old Testament were writen during the Babylonian exile, thus source materials were "borrowed."


38 posted on 11/18/2005 11:27:44 AM PST by Humvee (Beliefs are more powerful than facts - Paulus Atreides - BOCA RATON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
And his scientific points and arguments that life was not intelligently designed are...? Just more rhetoric.

The only "rhetoric" here is your attempt to twist what was said. He only said ID was not science and should not be taught as such. He never said he did not believe life was intelligently designed.

Only that such a thing is belief and not science.

SD

39 posted on 11/18/2005 11:29:42 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: shooter223
refute - to prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof

If it is possible for a Vatican official to actually refute ID, it must be falsifiable after all.
40 posted on 11/18/2005 11:58:26 AM PST by unlearner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Amazing! You say MY judgement appears to be clouded... What did I write that led you to that conclusion? I suggest you were responding to your own imagination.

On another note, what are you attempting to illustrate with the pictures of various skulls? How accurate shall we say the dates are? What portion of 'evolution' do you say they support? Many people may agree on 'facts'. Their agreement does NOT, in and of itself, constitute truth. So now where shall we go?

41 posted on 11/18/2005 12:09:38 PM PST by 1_Of_We
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: x5452
The problem is that evolution in the scientific sense isn't what's being taught in schools.

That problem is easily rectified with parental involvement in the child's life.

Besides, do you really want a Liberal teacher speaking to the subject of the Divine? Changing the subject does not change their bias.

42 posted on 11/18/2005 12:16:36 PM PST by Prime Choice (Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
"Only that such a thing is belief and not science."

Science is based on and inseparable from philosophy and natural faith.

"He only said ID was not science and should not be taught as such."

Math is also not science (at least not a natural science). Should we keep math out the science class too?

Evolutionists act like their version of reality is so self evident, we have to be blind not to see it. This is the worst kind of dogmatism, and has always served to slow the progress of science rather than enable it.

Great scientists appreciate the importance of epistemology.
43 posted on 11/18/2005 12:18:18 PM PST by unlearner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: x5452

They already have Genesis in hand. I would venture to suggest that for them, the question is not whether God created the universe and life; the question is how God created the universe and life.


44 posted on 11/18/2005 12:18:48 PM PST by megatherium (Hecho in China)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

No it's not it's easily rectified with swift rulings in the favor of parents who notice the schools doing this.

Can't happen when it's illegal for parents to question curriculum.


45 posted on 11/18/2005 12:24:08 PM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

1000bc ???
You obviously do not know your ancient history.
Egyptians' hieroglyphics go back 5000 years and beyond. The Sumarians left us 'cunniform' writing dating from 6000bc.
Go to the library and crack open some books on ancient history...or, try 'googling'.....
By the way.....much of the Hebrew Scriptures writings can be traced back to the " Epic of Gilgamesh"( 6000bc) ....( google)
Finally, do not swallow whole any Christian teaching when it purports to be "truth". What is truth for one is a lie for another.


46 posted on 11/18/2005 12:26:12 PM PST by Duffboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

Such natural explanations are more often than not philosophy of science and not science itself. The scientific method is not self-explanatory. I mentioned no "proofs" for the God of Revelation.

Philosophy is limited in what it can show: a First Mover, an Uncaused Cause, a Designer. This does not prove the God of Revelation. For that you need Faith. Faith tells us that the First Mover, the Uncaused Cause etc. is God, that is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Scriptures and Christianity.


47 posted on 11/18/2005 12:28:19 PM PST by Rampolla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: x5452
I was not speaking to parents just going to school boards. While that is a good idea, it is by no means a panacea for the problem any more than teaching ID is a solution.

I was speaking to daily involvement in the child's life and their involvement in the house of worship of their choosing.

When I grew up, my parents knew all the subjects my brothers and I were taking and part of the dinner table discussions were always on what my three brothers and I learned that day. That's parental involvement.

And it is not illegal for parents to question cirricula. That's defeatist propaganda.

48 posted on 11/18/2005 12:28:51 PM PST by Prime Choice (Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Humvee

Finally, someone who reads ancient history!
You refer to the Sumarians and the Epic of Gilgamesh, no doubt. Most of the Hebrew Scriptures were lifted from that ancient saga.


49 posted on 11/18/2005 12:29:39 PM PST by Duffboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Duffboy
"Most of the Hebrew Scriptures were lifted from that ancient saga."

What evidence will you provide, or are you simply stating your personal belief?

50 posted on 11/18/2005 12:33:34 PM PST by 1_Of_We
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-142 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson