"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | 01/19/06 | Tom Heneghan

[peyton randolph]

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion...

A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.

[onedoug]

Hmm....

[AmishDude]

They should definitely study stem cells

While most in the field of stem cell research were shocked by the reports of fraud, the shock was only one of degree; it is common knowledge that the bar for publication in this field often has appeared remarkably low, with even well-respected research journals seeming to fall over one another for the privilege of publishing the next hot paper.

or the science of global warming (anyone for hockey?) or learning that anti-inflammatory drugs can reduce the risk of oral cancer.

Gotta be learning our honest and forthright and agenda-free science.

[Dimensio]

Yes?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

So science is something you cook up " as a way of combatting the fact that public schools have become little more than Demo(n)cRAT indoctrination camps."

I guess that you must be sarcasm-impaired.

Ability to detect sarcasm is a sign of intelligence. For such an ostentiously intelligent person, you sure are dim.

[MineralMan]

"I am not here to bash Catholics or their church, but this won't be the first time they are wrong about something."

Oh, I'm sure that's true, but how do you know on a case-by-case basis? I know...you study the Bible, but I believe the Vatican has a bunch of Bibles and folks who study them, too.

[plain talk]

uh no. Macro evolution is NOT science. It's a faith-based theory in search of a few good facts.

[munin]

"A man,Adam, with a sinful nature"
Adam was not a man but a species, a new being created.
If you read a little history, or prehistory if you like,
start with "The 12th. Planet" by Zecharia Sitchin and continue with "Enuma Elish" "The Seven Tablets Of Creation" My edition was edited by L.W King from translation by George Smith and professor Zimmern and Professor Jensen and others. as taken from ancient Chaldean and Babylonian and Sumerian tablets discovered in the late 1800, there is much info there, much to much to list here, but it will give anybody that bother to read some of it a better understanding of Genesis

[Mulch]

Do you agree that these are the attributes that would define the term "science"?

1. Observation
2. Identification
3. Description
4. Investigation
5. Explanation

[conservativebabe]

laymen's terms please. i am not versed on this subject.

[nightdriver]

ID may not be "scientific," (if it was, I seriously doubt that we could understand it) but it is historical.

Atheistic evolutionists are only trying to force their opinionated theories on the general public by hiding behind the humped-up liberal judges' opinions.

[DaveyB]

Al Gore has restated his belief he won the presidency.
Does this mean you believe the Vatican errs when it supports evolution?

It means Gore is wrong - but if the shoe fits...

[Dimensio]

The claim is that there are some parts on some organisms, such as the flagellum on some bacteria, that could not have come about through a successive process where more and more "components" of the whole structure were added over passing generations.

[Dimensio]

ID may not be "scientific," (if it was, I seriously doubt that we could understand it) but it is historical.

Howso?

Atheistic evolutionists are only trying to force their opinionated theories on the general public by hiding behind the humped-up liberal judges' opinions.

What about "evolutionists" who are not atheists?

[Binghamton_native]

Actually, unless the Pope speaks infallibly: "the charism the Pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals." a Catholic need not agree with a pronouncement from the Vatican.

[conservativebabe]

Gotcha thanks. that's what I thought you meant after having watched something on ID. The bacterial flagellum being the explanation/evidence of ID.

[jcb8199]

From http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp:

"Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. "

Georges Lemaitre was a a Belgian priest who came up with the idea that the universed "hatched," like an egg breaking open, a giant "BANG." His "peers" at Cambridge derided his explanation of "The Beginning" by making fun of him, calling it a "Big Bang".... Einstein, after hearing Lemaitre speak, stood up in the audience and applauded, calling it the most beautiful explanation he'd ever heard.

[Dimensio]

Alright. Just keep in mind that the argument for irreducable complexity -- the cornerstone of ID -- ignores that a feature can come about through subtractive processes; that is, an organism starts with more than something like a flagellum and over time various parts are removed until the end-result is the flagellum.

[PatrickHenry]

... such as the flagellum ...

Quick -- what's the difference between the "irreducibly complex" flagellum and Piltdown Man? Give up? When scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a hoax, they walked away from it.

[jcb8199]

Ok, enough with the DemonRat, Demo(n)cRAT, DemoCRAP, and all that garbage. It is as immature and pointless as Repukelicans, Republikkkans, and so on.

[Flavius Josephus]

Our Pastor said yesterday during a funeral mass that ID is *essentially* the Catholic position. We believe that the Lord did exactly what Genesis said He did, but that we have no way of knowing how He did it or what the parameters were. I mean, what is a day before the Earth was put into orbit around the sun? It could be 10000 years for all we know.