Skip to comments."Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper
Posted on 01/19/2006 1:33:32 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
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.
What I find hilarious are idiots who can't admit they goofed.
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.
"Intelligent design" not science
Neither is "evolution".
Neither is global warming.
Do you make your children call you "Perfessor" too?
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.
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."
"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?"
"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). "
The Media will latch onto ANYTHING to diminish the influence of the Church, or religion in general.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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."
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.
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?
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.
Is choosing one's wardrobe an action?
Why would someone choose to dress as a whore?
Why do whores dress as they do?
On the details, not on the basic facts.
How is it taught in textbooks? Is it taught as a matter of degree, a matter of essence, or is macro-evolution simply used as shorthand for the extreme cumulative changes undergone since their last common ancestor by two divergent species?
WTF! This is idiot fanatic talk! Totally irrational.
The following is from my son's College Biology Textbook, Biology, Sixth Edition, Campbell & Reece, 2002, page 476:
"Speciation is at the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is a change over the genetics in a population's allele frequencies, mainly by genetic drift and natural selection. ...Yet the cumulative change during millions of speciation episodes over vast tracts of time must account for macroevolution, the level of change that is evident over the time scale of the fossil record."
"Must" account for macroevolution? They sure don't sound too confident about that do they? This is an interesting admission.
I thankfully missed that fun/frustration.
"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.
Actually your rejection of the affects of millions of years worth of cumulative changes is based on faith not science. Do you reject the idea of macro-deposition, the accumulation of detritus that can create a mountain out of a mole hill (or even a flat plain)?
You have no evidence that millions of years of any "cumulative" changes resulted in macro evolution. You have your faith. I have mine. Will yours save you in the end?
Yes, but not one that is highly important.
"Why would someone choose to dress as a whore?
Teenage girls are not dressing like whores, they are dressing like their peers. The teenage dress code changes.
"Why do whores dress as they do?
To expose as much skin as possible and communicate their occupation.
As a kid in the '60s I started to grow long hair, simply because I hated hair cuts and it was becoming the fashion for guys to have longer hair. I got into an argument with my Grandfather who was of the opinion that men could only have short hair. After a lengthy 'discussion' I explained to him that historically hair length changed for both men and women and was not inherently a male of female trait. After a couple of minutes, he finally came out with the real reason he didn't like it. It made it difficult for him to tell the difference between males and females, especially at a distance. I asked him why it mattered. He didn't answer me.
I assume he didn't answer because he couldn't think of 'why' it mattered, what changes to him or his life it really made.
The way teenagers dress as teenagers does not matter. What matters is what kind of adult they become, how they treat their family, friends and others, and what contribution to their society they make.
Many adults who are responsible for teenagers, no matter the context, do not respond to what the teenagers wear because of the consequences to the teenager but because of the fear that it reflects poorly on them.
Of course some don't like it because they are simply control freaks that hate anything that runs counter to their belief system.
Why, thank you! That was very kind.
1) He did attack--he made enemies in doing so. That is a historical fact. He had enemies, largely due to his ticking off scientists and theologians alike by telling them all, definitively, without doubt, they were wrong (though he could NOT *prove* it definitively, without doubt). It makes sense to us because we are 400 years removed from the issue. He was flouting nearly 1500 years of accepted scientific and religious dogma, in a very condescending way (his "defense" of geocentrism is a joke--Simplicius, the "defender" is made a fool in the work).
2) There are Protestants today who insis the world is 6,000 years old. You really think that 500 years ago they would have appreciated what was said by a Catholic who was trying to destroy their biblical understanding of the Universe? Martin Luther denounced the ideas personally.
3) It was no secret what Copernicus thought. He never taught it as fact. His reputation is important as it shows that the Church wasn't an enemy of progress as is often argued--he was welcomed as an astronomer. His hesitation in publication can also be attributed to the fact that it was a MAJOR theory with NO concrete proof...
This guy provides a pretty balanced view of the matter:
And like you said, we can judge people by their actions.
...but not one that is highly important.
You might feel differently when your daughter leaves the house dressed like a slut.
Teenage girls are not dressing like whores, they are dressing like their peers.
Who are dressing like whores.
The teenage dress code changes.
Yes it does. And the whore look is in.
"Why do whores dress as they do? To expose as much skin as possible and communicate their occupation.
And the effect on males of women exposing their skin to them is what?
As a kid in the '60s I started to grow long hair, simply because I hated hair cuts...
I recognize a categorical difference between varying hair-lengths and varying cleavage/butt/belly exposure.
Or maybe I should have said that cauliflower is yucky--that is as irrelevant as any of it. God IS who IS. He is not in the past nor the future, thus time, it would seem, is of no consequence to God. It IS of consequence to Men.
So what are the theistic evolutionists (like the Pope) trying to force on us?
Personally, I always preferred the various tales found in Astrology, Channeling, Hinduism, Gnostic traditions, Neo-paganism, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Wicca, etc.
As I'm sure you have been informed of many times before, all scientific findings are considered tentative and based on level of certainty not 'proof'. Because of this, science literature is couched in tentative terminology, which unfortunately does not well express the confidence level of the findings.
Using the existence of this language as evidence against science can be easily construed as disingenuous. It is also ineffective.
Any conversation about James Bond is enough to (temporarily) awaken me from lurk mode!
I agree with the former assertion that On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the best Bond movie. IMO, Roger Moore is at least a little underrated. The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only are two of the finest Bond movies, I think.
Best Bond girl name: Holly Goodhead from Moonraker. (Always a fan of Carey Lowell from Licence to Kill and subsequent Law and Order fame, too.)
Details like multi-regional evolution vs. recent African origin?
It seems to me that much is unknown.
My daghter is 29 years old and has a 9 year old son, and yes we did have that argument when she was younger. She's the one who got me to understand the real impact of teenage dress codes.
"And the effect on males of women exposing their skin to them is what?
Possibly the appreciation of the female form, depending on the female form of course. Definitely an assessment of the intent of the whore and a decision to either pay or ignore the prostitute. Definitely not an overpowering urge to rape and pillage.
If apples did not exist there would be nothing around to make applesauce.
If Creation did not exist the would be nothing around to do evil.
Is that so hard?
Sorry about that. I think I need to get more exercise before I start making these early morning posts. LOL! It just gets a little frustrating to hear what sounds to me like a fanatic spewing an analogy to morality like that when the real issue is the acceptance of evolution by the Catholic church. I apologize Aquinasfan. Carry on!
But what is known is that we don't all descend from a 6000 year old pair of common ancestors, or even a single pair of individuals at any time.
1) WE KNOW it is a fact, and can prove it. He believed it was a fact, stated it WAS a fact, but couldn't PROVE it. You need to take off the 21st century filter--he was saying that nearly 1500 years of accepted (and "proven") scientific and religious dogma was WRONG, something NO ONE should take lightly, and certainly not something one should approach without PROOF. Hence his "specious" claim--he said he had proof, but had none.
2) He was never threatened with death, so that is bogus. The Church wasn't the only one "forcing its theology," Protestants did, and scientists rejected Galileo's assertions. So the Church was not alone in it. It didn't persecute him because he didn't accept "their" viewpoint, he went on trial (religious, not secular) for teaching something that was contrary to what was taught by the Church (and by Protestants as well, don't forget). That's all. They said he can talk about it, but not in a way that says it is CERTAIN, because it WASN'T certain at that time. It was intererested in protecting TRUTH as much as it was still smarting from the Protestant Reformation.
3) They didn't use force. You are still assuming that the myths about torture and painful punishment are truth.
4) Sheesh, do some research on the subject before you regurgitate anti-Catholic B.S. His "recantation" was largely a formality. It did not damage his reputation or work in any way. He published his best scientific work AFTER he was put under house arrest.
5) No, no, no, and no. He wasn't tortured, nor was he threatened. He was not threatened with execution. Copernicus published the book and THEN died; and his book took DECADES of work (which, if the Church was as much an enemy as you claim, they would have stopped him; they certainly wouldn't have asked his help in reconfiguring the ecclesiastical calendar...). Even a brief perusal of his Wikipedia entry shows you are totally wrong:
"When Copernicus book was published, it contained an unauthorized preface by the Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander. This cleric stated that Copernicus wrote his heliocentric account of the earth's movement as a mere mathematical hypothesis, not as an account that contained truth or even probability. This was apparently written to soften any religious backlash against the book, but there is no evidence that Copernicus considered the heliocentric model as merely mathematically convenient, separate from reality. Copernicus' hypothesis contradicted the account of the sun's movement around the earth that appears in the Old Testament (Joshua 10:13)."
Notice that the "preface" you mentioned was put there by a LUTHERAN theologian, not Copernicus.
6) You seem to be motivated more by anti-Catholicism than a pursuit of truth. Read "How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," for starters. Follow that up with "Christianity of Trial." Enlighten yourself ("Enlightenment," Kant said, "is man's leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another.")
7) "it assume to have the proper knowledge and was willing to use force against anybody who dared to disagree."
It assumed, along with practically every other scientist and theologin of the day...
Again, drop the anti-Catholicism and READ.
I wasn't aiming to start a "God exists/doesn't exist" conversation. Within the scope of this thread, the point I was making is that mankind invented time keeping. Indonesian tribes are irrelevant. When it comes to evolution, ID, creationism, 6-days, and so on, HUMANITY invented timekeeping, not God. THAT is all I was saying.