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 ...
Science is based on and inseparable from philosophy and natural faith.
Science is based upon the scientific method, which includes observation and reproducibility of results. Until we can create another universe ex nihilo in the lab, the questions of who or what is behind creation is not one for the field of science.
Math is also not science (at least not a natural science). Should we keep math out the science class too?
Yes, we should keep math out of science class. This is idiotic. Math is repeatable and reproducible. It is science.
Believing in a Creator (which I do) is not science.
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.
The scientific method, and indeed science itself, is merely an artificial construct of man. But it is not an arbitrarily designed tool; it has been crafted to do a job. Namely, to aid man in understanding the natural existence around him. To subject God to this tool is to ask man to define Him by virtue of what is not included in nature. Therefore, if this is the measure of God, then whenever something is at last understood it is another piece of God that is taken from Him. I don't like that idea.
Philosophy is limited by what can be imagined, not by what can be shown. It provides sustenance for thought, and through thought, spiritual enlightenment. Within this realm man stands a chance at strengthening his grasp on God's true glory.
Science seeks facts, philosophy seeks truths. Facts require evidence, truths thrive on understanding. Which would you prefer to use to know your God?
Nothing the parents can do.
That's why my kids will be going to Private Catholic School.
Google, " Epic of Gilgamesh". The proof is in the reading....passages lifted straight out of this saga and transposed to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The ' Flood" is one instance.
The early Hebrews came from Sumaria ( think Abraham )who carried with him Sumarian folklore which passed was along as oral history before it was written down.
What evidence will you provide, or are you simply stating your personal belief?
The Seven Tablets of Creation springs to mind.
The 9th circus is just an absurdity masquerading as a part of the judiciary. Everyone and their brother knows that.
Well the Supremes didn't exactly set the record strait on property ownership... (we'll see how the new members weigh in on such things)
And yes, even I have to be reminded of that...which is why we faithful gather together; so that one can be strong when another is in doubt.
May God bless you and keep you.
I was responding to your statement that "Not many (if any) scientific 'facts' exist to support the 'Theory of Evolution'."
I supplied the photograph of a number of nice fossil skulls, along with chimp and modern human skulls, noting that these are facts.
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?
What I was trying to illustrate is that there are a lot of facts to work with. The dating is another subject, but there is a lot of evidence there too. Radiometric dating is a whole broad field with geology, nuclear chemistry, and a variety of other disciplines involved. It might not be exact, but it appears from several dating methods and corroborating evidence that it is pretty accurate.
Many people may agree on 'facts'. Their agreement does NOT, in and of itself, constitute truth. So now where shall we go?
The goal of science is not truth--you need to seek elsewhere for that. What science tries to come up with are well-supported theories. This sums it up well:
In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
[From an NSF abstract cited by RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.]
You state: "To subject God to this tool is to ask man to define Him by virtue of what is not included in nature. Therefore, if this is the measure of God, then whenever something is at last understood it is another piece of God that is taken from Him. I don't like that idea."
I have not said the scientific method is the measure of God. Science is a tool that investigates nature in a determined fashion with tests using measurement and quantification.
The debate is about empirical observations of an order/design. Philosophers have argued that this order means that there is an Orderer responsible for the observed order. Christian revelation provides that this Orderer is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Scriptures and Christianity.
St.Paul argues for this in Romans 1:Since the creaton of the world...God's eternal power and divinity have become visibile, RECOGNIZED THROUGH THE THINGS HE HAS MADE. (emphasis added) Romans 1:20
God is not subject to the tool. The tool reveals an order and design, which ultimately comes from the Creator.
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.
If anything, it looks as though some humans are devolving into squishy little things.
(I am a non evo-fundie.)
Yes, and that is ONE view inside the Church. It is my understanding that many views, including the literal, exist.
"Any other members of the Catholic Caucus care to weigh in?"
Please see my post #67.
Darwin was really attached to the idea of apes being his close relatives because he was one in his last lifetime. And likely in his next.
Good post, thanks for refuting the silly noting that Rome denies Genesis.
Who in the Church argues that Genesis must be read literally?
Nobody said Rome denied Genesis.
The fact is, the creation story is a story meant to teach a truth. The writer had no way of knowing exactly how creation came to be.
"The writer had no way of knowing exactly how creation came to be."
No way? Divine Revelation sinky, how about THAT way?
Revelation teaches spiritual truths, not scientific truths.
Hoping to catch the first look when the Lord returns?
Philosophy classes should discuss what kind of philosophy that science is. Philosophy is the root, science only the branch.
It is very hard to read the Summa as anything but a literalist view of the Holy Writ. St. Thomas is still seen by many as a key Doctor of the Church, is he not?
So says sinkspur. I'll depend on St. Thomas thank you. At least I know he is who he says he is.
As to his scientific knowledge, Thomas taught that the male semen contained sperm and egg together, and the female was a mere receptacle.
But, you're free to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis if you wish. You will, however, be in the minority among Catholic scholars.
From I:74:2, it seems clear to me that Aquinas accepts that there will be varying interpretations. YMMV.
LOL, yeah and your tales make you trustworthy? I think not. Since St. Thomas died before the Immaculate Conception was a dogmatic belief of the faith, he was entitled to that opinion. Further, his standing in the Church is, was and probably always will be immense. So yes, I join with him in what he taught over the modernist nonsense you spew while claiming (falsely) to speak for the whole Church. (Not the first falsehood you've spewed here, eh what sinky?)
Including the literal.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...."
These words, with which Holy Scripture begins, always have the effect on me of the solemn tolling of a great old bell, which stirs the heart from afar with its beauty and dignity and gives it an inkling of the mystery of eternity. For many of us, moreover, these words recall the memory of our first encounter with God's holy book, the Bible, which was opened for us at this spot. It at once brought us out of our small child's world, captivated us with its poetry, and gave us a feeling for the immeasurability of creation and its Creator.
Yet these words give rise to a certain conflict. They are beautiful and familiar, but are they also true? Everything seems to speak against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard -- the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven [or six] days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion -- an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green of the fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them.
Do these words, then, count for anything? In fact a theologian said not long ago that creation has now become an "unreal" concept; that if one is to be intellectually honest one ought to speak no longer of creation but rather of "mutation and selection." Are these words true? Or have they perhaps, along with the entire Word of God and the whole biblical tradition, come out of the reveries of the infant age of human history, for which we occasionally experience homesickness but to which we can nevertheless not return, inasmuch as we cannot live on nostalgia? Is there an answer to this that we can claim for ourselves in this day and age?
Difference Between Form and Content
One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time -- from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world.
The world is not, as people used to think then, a chaos of mutually opposed forces; nor is it the dwelling of demonic powers from which human beings must protect themselves. The sun and the moon are not deities that rule over them, and the sky that stretches over their heads is not full of mysterious and adversary divinities. Rather, all of this comes from one power, from God's eternal Reason, which became -- in the Word -- the power of creation.
All of this comes from the same Word of God that we meet in the act of faith. Thus, insofar as human beings realized that the world came from the Word, they ceased to care about the gods and demons. In addition, the world was freed so that reason might lift itself up to God and so that human beings might approach this God fearlessly. In this Word they experienced the true enlightenment that does away with the gods and the mysterious powers and that reveals to them that there is only one power everywhere and that we are in his hands. This is the living God, and this same power (which created the earth and the stars and which bears the whole universe) is the very one whom we meet in the Word of Holy Scripture. In this Word we come into contact with the real primordial force of the world and with the power that is above all powers.
- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "In the Beginning....": A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall