Skip to comments.Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
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 ...
Only by some of those that accept what they are told to accept.
Hmmm. These guys were wrong about the sun rotating around the earth and you want us to believe they have discovered the "Orderer"? Obviously, their "Orderer" was terribly flawed ...
You are either Christian are you are not.
You either accept Christ or you do not.
You either have faith or do not.
If you are fretting into a cold sweat in your sleep out of fear you may be conforming to something Christianity is not for you; you either accept God's will or rebel against it.
When I was baptized, I accepted Jesus Christ. My bases are covered. Either that or I was lied to by the Christians. Either way, no fretting into a cold sweat here. The ones that should be fretting are the ones coming here and lying in the name of God. That is a major sin that will keep you out of heaven.
Which "guys" would you be speaking about? Plus how do your comments fit into this debate about ID?
I was commenting about how you put your trust in a bunch of men that thought the sun revolved around the earth ...
Further, he (the Pope) seems to be cautioning those who have been claiming Church endorsement of the full-bodied, design-defeating version of Darwin's theory of evolution, which, after all, is often little more than philosophical materialism applied to science, added Chapman.
Chapman noted that in his very first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI had rebuked the idea that human beings are mere products of evolution, and that, like his predecessor, John Paul II, the new Pope has a long record of opposition to scientific materialism.
excerpt from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3015&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage
Personally I feel that both ID and Evo should be taught side by side, so students can decides for themselves - whether it be in a science class, philosophy class, or whatever.
Where do you see that in my posts? I assume you are making this type of remark because Fr. Coyne is head of the Vatican Observatory. I have not based my remarks on his but have simply commented on the issue he raised. At the time of Galileo, most of the civilized world believed the sun revolved around the earth as at one time the civilized world thought the earth was flat. However, your observations have nothing to do with the points I made.
But they do. You were making the point that the 'philosophers' came to realize that since the world was so ordered, there had to be a devine "Orderer". My point is that they also thought the sun revolved around the earth therefor their 'order' was flawed hence their revelation of an "Orderer" was thusly flawed or that the the "Orderer" was flawed.
ID IS evolution of man over millions of years from little squishy organisms.
Darwin is more reasonable than the people who defend him:
Darwin: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
And after about 146 years, he is still correct.
"And after about 146 years, he is still correct."
And your proof IS??
OK, how about a course or class called "Philosophical Science" where both ID and Evo could be taught comparatively??
The proof of time.
Evolution: Man evolved over millions of years from little squishy things.
ID: Man evolved over millions of years from little squishy things.
"Evolution: Man evolved over millions of years from little squishy things.
ID: Man evolved over millions of years from little squishy things."
So if it's that simple, why are we wasting our time teaching the evo theory in the schools?
Let's get back to the 3 R's, huh?
No wonder Johnny can't read, with all the time wasted on PC, sex education, junk science, and the rest.
"The proof of time."
WHAT has been proven over time??
Nothing. That's why I don't believe in evolution.
But the Catholic Church considers the creation stories to be allegories and in no way literal.
I don't think that's exactly right sinkspur, nor is it honest for you to speak as if Ex Cathedra. Any other members of the Catholic Caucus care to weigh in?
Augustine certainly argued against an entirely literal reading of Genesis.