"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

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

[DarkSavant]

Galileo was very good at tearing down other theories, but was poor at proving his own. So the Church was stuck in a do-or-die instigated by Galileo of defending an old model whose evidence was debunked, or supporting a new system whose evidence was scant. That would somewhat be akin to asking you to embrace Intelligent Design if all the evidence for the theory of evolution was adequately debunked(I'm not saying anything pro or contra about these two, it's just an example). It's something I don't think you would do. The logical thing to do would be to hold one's opinion until there were enough facts to make a prudent judgement. Galileo demanded nothing of the sort, and demanded the scripture be reinterpreted immediately. Hence his problems.

[Right Wing Professor]

What I find hilarious are idiots who can't admit they goofed.

[Right Wing Professor]

Well, the problem is that common descent from Adam and Eve is directly contradicted by the genetic evidence, and Humani generis is, despite the Church's protestations, in conflict with the scientific evidence.

[pleikumud]

"Intelligent design" not science
Neither is "evolution".


Neither is global warming.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What I find hilarious are idiots who can't admit they goofed.

Do you make your children call you "Perfessor" too?

[dmz]

By the same token, it's also amusing to see and read the creationists refer to the evolutionists as atheists, communists, nihilists, liberals, and such. Neither side of this issue on FR is free from mud-slinging.

[jcb8199]

Yeah, let's use the AP as a credible source, rather than Catholic resources:

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

"While not exactly canonizing Darwin, Pius XII did imply that the theory of evolution isn't necessarily inimical to Christianity. Certainly he didn't reject evolution altogether. How then do we explain the big headlines when John Paul II says basically the same thing in 1996?"
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html

"The Catholic Church has never had a problem with "evolution" (as opposed to philosophical Darwinism, which sees man solely as the product of materialist forces). Unlike Luther and Calvin and modem fundamentalists, the Church has never taught that the first chapter of Genesis is meant to teach science...Pius XII correctly pointed out in the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) that the theory of evolution had not been completely proved, but he did not forbid
that the theory of evolution concerning the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter-for Catholic faith obliges us to hold that human souls are immediately created by God-be investigated and discussed by experts as far as the present state of human science and sacred theology allows (no. 36). "
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html


The Media will latch onto ANYTHING to diminish the influence of the Church, or religion in general.

[conservativebabe]

True

[DarkSavant]

I answered your question, but I'll reiterate it. Heresy. Teaching as fact something contrary to the current interpretation of scripture that he couldn't prove. Like I stated already, he was allowed to treat it as a workable hypothesis(which it was at this time) but that wasn't good enough for him. He tried to strongarm the Church to accept Copernicus(a very bad move).

[b_sharp]

I know you are eager for me to get your message, but 4 posts? :-)

Upon re-read, you will find that my post is saying the separation between micro and macro-evolution is simply one of degree not essence. The separation seen by creationists between the two is an artificial construct based on misunderstanding and agenda. There is nothing in the genome that says otherwise. Simply accepting micro-evolution also accepts macro-evolution so the Vatican is being clear.

[Aquinasfan]

Well, the problem is that common descent from Adam and Eve is directly contradicted by the genetic evidence

Which is?

[plain talk]

Frankly, anyone who fails to see the distinction between macro and micro evolution is intellectually not up to discussing the subject. It is taught in textbooks BTW.

[plain talk]

There were 4 posts because Free Republic went down last night. Maybe you weren't online at the time.

No, accepting micro evolution does NOT accept macro evolution. One does not necessarily lead to the other. The evo's believe it does. But that's based on faith not science.

[jcb8199]

They put him under arrest for violating an agreement he signed saying he would teach it as a probability, not a fact. How smart is it to flip nearly 1500 years' worth of accepted religious AND scientific knowledge based on the specious observations of ONE man? Galileo himself couldn't PROVE beyond *doubt* that he was right--by our standard, he was just MORE right than Ptolemy. Not only did Galileo teach it as fact (again, not something he could PROVE and something he said he wouldn't do), he then ventured into the realm of theology. Catholics and Protestants alike read Genesis as meaning the Earth was the center. True, the interpretation was wrong--but WE know that now. THEY didn't.
It was "heresy." I'm sure you realize that "heresy" only means "An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs." Christians taught that the Earth is the center--that was an established belief. He was tried in a Church court for teaching something different from espoused belief.
Check out this site for a good presentation of the myths:
http://www.griffithobs.org/IPS%20Planetarian/mythofgalileo.html

The crux of the issue is that Galileo was not tortured (as is claimed), he was not executed, he was not exiled; he lived comfortably until his death, even (as the above site points out) publishing his best work while under "house arrest."

As for Copernicus, he did exactly what Galileo had the opportunity to do--"Here's an idea, this looks right." If Galileo had come along and said "I've seen it, here, investigate," I doubt there would have been any trouble. This quote sums up the issue nicely:

"In confronting a theory like Darwin's, Catholics should anchor themselves in the proposition that there can be no real conflict between faith and science. The danger occurs when scientists trespass into theology, or vice versa. The Galileo affair is a sobering reminder of what can happen when certain parties in the Church resist a scientific hypothesis on a priori biblical grounds. If the congregation of Cardinals that condemned Galileo had paid more attention to Augustine and Aquinas, who both held that the Holy Spirit, speaking through the sacred writers, was not teaching a system of astronomy, the disastrous split which occurred between religion and science in the seventeenth century might have been avoided."
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html

The point about Copernicus is that the Church is OBVIOUSLY not an enemy to science or opponent of change. It merely wants to proceed judiciously, with as much knowledge as possible. Which is why the Church doesn't *support* or *oppose* evolution--we don't have enough EVIDENCE to destroy it or cement it.

[b_sharp]

"And today most of the teenage girls I see dress like whores.

The problem with that is?

Does that make them into whores? Does that mean they will become whores? Does that mean they will accept when some guy tries to offer them money for sex?

Or is the problem that it makes it more difficult for 'Johns' to identify the real whores from teenages?

I always thought that what the person does and who they are is more important than how they dress. Is this not true?

[Aquinasfan]

Don't understand why you cannot argue rationally?

I thought my post was fairly rational.

What you are saying makes no sense. It must be because you accept the fact that the Catholic church does support evolution and are trying to convince yourself otherwise?

I don't think so. For example, the pope is generally regarded to be a leading Catholic. Papal encyclicals are regarded as authoritative teaching documents of the Church, but they are not regarded with the same degree of infallibility as statements ex cathedra.

In his encyclical, Humanae Generis, Pope Pius XII has stated that Catholics are not permitted to believe in polygenism. This is the most authoritative Church teaching regarding polygenism to date.

Nevertheless, this statement still permits belief in evolution prior to the advent of Adam and Eve. But Catholics must believe that the human race is descended from Adam and Eve.

[Aquinasfan]

I always thought that what the person does and who they are is more important than how they dress. Is this not true?

Is choosing one's wardrobe an action?

Why would someone choose to dress as a whore?

Why do whores dress as they do?

[Right Wing Professor]

That the last common ancestor of our mitochondria (our common matrilineal ancestor, or Mitochondrial Eve) is not the last common ancestor of our entire genome; and that therefore while we are all descended on the maternal line from one person, she was most certainly not our only female ancestor living at the time. Better yet, our common patrilineal ancestor (Y-chromosome Adam) is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve; and so the talking snake story can be ruled out on genetic grounds (not that it was ever particularly plausible anyway).

[Aquinasfan]

Found this. It seems that the scientific jury is out.

[Right Wing Professor]

It seems that the scientific jury is out.

On the details, not on the basic facts.