Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design

Guardian ^ | 08/28/06 | John Hooper

[RobbyS]

I think the "scientific" test is to DISPROVE the theory of God. One of the objectives of many evolutionists has been exactly that. What they come up with are many objections, but not proof of them. St. Thomas did not "prove" the existence of God: he only showed that the concept was reasonable, not contrary toi the laws of logic. Darwin did not prove evolution; he only showed that it was reasonable. But his original theory is not as grand and all emcompassing as that of Dawkins et a; whose are trying to set up a counter-theology based on the assumption that "science" is all that we can know.

[taxesareforever]

I think the "scientific" test is to DISPROVE the theory of God.

God is not a theory. God is a fact.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I think the "scientific" test is to DISPROVE the theory of God. One of the objectives of many evolutionists has been exactly that. What they come up with are many objections, but not proof of them.

Y'know, I'm gettin' tired of repeating myself. SCIENCE can neither prove NOR DISPROVE the existence of God--and any scientist worth his pay knows that.

"But his original theory is not as grand and all emcompassing as that of Dawkins et a; whose are trying to set up a counter-theology based on the assumption that "science" is all that we can know."

Dawkins is an idiot. As is anyone who thinks ""science" is all that we can know".

[curiosity]

I amazed at how quickly reporters jump to conclusions on based on the shakiest evidence. Last week, the head of the Vatican observatory resigns without a reason given, and then on the basis of unnamed sources major papers were reporting that it was because of his opposition to intelligent design. Later, we find out the man is 73 years old and has cancer, has been planning to retire for many months, and the Vatican explicitly denied any connection with his views on evolution.

Now we have more of the same garbage reporting. This story is entirely based on the word of Dominique Tassot, an anti-science crackpot with zero influence or connections with the Vatican. It's junk journalism at its worst.

[curiosity]

Doesn't this impy ID?

Not as it is defined by the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents.

The problem is that the term "intelligent design" is really a misnomer and highly misleading.

[PatrickHenry]

I'd be astonished if the Vatican endorsed ID. They're still embarrassed by the Galileo affair. I doubt that they want to be on the wrong side again. But it's folly to make predictions, so we'll just wait it out.

[curiosity]

I'd be astonished if the Vatican endorsed ID.

Of course they won't. Pope Benedict is too smart for that. He'll reaffirm that the inherent order of the universe points to God and leave it at that. Of course, the IDers will claim that as an endorsement of ID, just as they claimed Ken Miller's similar statement was, but that will be a lie.

[Thalos]

If only more people could believe that, instead of making up a false religion vs. science dichotomy.