"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

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

[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.

[deroberst]

Pope Pius XII stated church teaching on this point in 1950 in an encyclical called 'Humani Generis'(You can find it on line). It states in part that research and discussion into the doctrine of evolution regarding the question of the origin of the human body from pre-existing living matter is permitted. [para. 36] and that research must consider theories favorable and unfavorable to evolution fairly. [para. 36] So this statement by Pope Benedict does not seem to change anything. There has always been an argument for the existence of God based on intelligent design in Theology, but it is not a scientific argument because it cannot be demonstrated nor, in fact, disproved through experimentation.

[conservativebabe]

Hmm. Not unreasonable.

[Right Wing Professor]

It's faith-based science, much like global warming.

So science is something you cook up " as a way of combatting the fact that public schools have become little more than Demo(n)cRAT indoctrination camps.". Silly me. I thought it was a way to explore the fundamental laws of nature.

[peyton randolph]

There has always been an argument for the existence of God based on intelligent design in Theology, but it is not a scientific argument because it cannot be demonstrated nor, in fact, disproved through experimentation.

Well stated.

[Dimensio]

I still have yet to figure out how evolution and ID are incompatible. One postulates the creation of the universe, the other is a theory as to how species evolve.

That's not "ID" as the "ID movement" explains it. ID is an attempt to explain "irreducably complex" structures, which are supposed anatomical features of organisms that "could not" have emerged through natural selection. The problems with it are twofold; first, it is abundantly clear from the very words of the major backers of the ID movement that it is nothing more than Biblical literalist creationism with a screen covering up the religious aspects and second, the arguments regarding alleged "irreducably complex" structures have already been shown to be flawed and without merit.

ID as a movement has nothing to do with the creation of the universe and everything to do with overthrowing accepted practices of science in favour of conjecture based upon biological ignorance.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Same way they reconcile that Mary was sinless and only had one child Jesus.

[DaveyB]

The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution...

AND

Al Gore has restated his belief he won the presidency.

[conservativebabe]

ROFL! That's a snorter.

[peyton randolph]

Al Gore has restated his belief he won the presidency.

Does this mean you believe the Vatican errs when it supports evolution?

[kittymyrib]

Jesus refers to God creating male and female and creating the world many times in the Gospels. How can a church believe in evolution, the random, accidental origin of life in light of Jesus's own words?

[onedoug]

I really like science, and even evolu...uh, "development".

Just for starters, aside from the origin of life itself, how did reproduction evolve?

And if you can note the evolution of the eye in any phylum, please let us know the fossil evidence.

[Rudder]

...still have yet to figure out how evolution and ID are incompatible.

The real conflict arises because ID tries to pass itself off as science, which it is not, whereas evolution theory is a scientific endeavor.

[conservativebabe]

When you mention "irreducably complex", is that the theory that one part does not work without any other part?

[Dimensio]

Just for starters, aside from the origin of life itself, how did reproduction evolve?

Reproduction didn't evolve. Reproduction was a prerequisite before evolution could occur in the first place.

[Dimensio]

How can a church believe in evolution, the random, accidental origin of life in light of Jesus's own words?

The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the origin of life, much less that it was necessarily random and/or accidental.

[peyton randolph]

Jesus refers to God creating male and female and creating the world many times in the Gospels. How can a church believe in evolution...

Some beliefs are faith-based. Other beliefs are science-based. With respect to the latter, I'm sure that the Vatican also believes in gravity and that the earth revolves around the sun.

[Chili Girl]

The Church, which has never rejected evolution, teaches that God created the world and the natural laws by which life developed.

The Catholic Church does not believe in creationism? WOW!!!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Reproduction didn't evolve"

Nice catch. :)

[Dimensio]

When you mention "irreducably complex", is that the theory that one part does not work without any other part?

It's the claim that certain features could not have come about through an additive process over successive generations. It is not a "theory".

[GLDNGUN]

Counting down for the first Catholic-bashing post. 1...2...3

I am not here to bash Catholics or their church, but this won't be the first time they are wrong about something.