"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.

[Dimensio]

Are you suggesting that ID, as proposed by Behe, proposes a mechanism for the intervention of the designer identical or reasonably similar to that of genetic engineering firms?

[Antonello]

I guess that you must be sarcasm-impaired.

Ability to detect sarcasm is a sign of intelligence. For such an ostentiously intelligent person, you sure are dim.

Are you seriously saying that your original post was meant as sarcasm? Let's take a look at it in its entirety:

The entire evolution vs ID debate is an aberration caused by the fact that freedom of speech, or any other kind of freedom, has been eliminated in government schools.

ID was invented as a way of combatting the fact that public schools have become little more than Demo(n)cRAT indoctrination camps.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot seem to read that in any way that sounds sarcastic. What it does sound like is someone who accidentally conveyed a true thought without realizing that it exposed an ulterior motive that they would have preferred to keep hidden. And then, of course, tried to cover it up by claiming that it was just a joke.

[xmission]

Guess I'm still confused on why small changes are evolution. If I understand you correctly, then for arguments sake let's say there is a herd of all white horses. One horse is born with a small black spot. It mates, and the spot is not transfered to it's offspring. Is this evolution or just a mutation? I could see your argument if you were saying that mutations are a step that can lead to evolution instead of saying that they are evolution. Am I wrong?

[b_sharp]

First insult of the thread marker.

AntiEvo 1

[PatrickHenry]

Galileo didn't have the evidence to prove Copernicus' theory, but wanted the Vatican to change their interpretation anyways. A greak book on it was "The Sleepwalkers" by Arthur Koestler

But he did. A prediction of the Copernicus theory was that Venus would be ween to go through phases. This was visible with Galileo's telescope.

[xmission]

First insult of the thread marker.

AntiEvo 1

I'd say post #4 was the first one. Looked like a anticipatory swipe at creationists to me.

[jec41]

Evil is simply the absence of God.

Cute but not logically deducted or scientific. First the student uses science to prove darkness and cold do not exist. Lacking the scientific evidence to prove that evil does not exist he recites a philosophical deduction that can neither be proved or disproved which makes it opinion or speculation. Its called bait and switch. However the professor's argument was no better for he only presented a philosophical deducted proof which has been refuted by another philosophical deducted proof. It remains a philosophical debate and anyone schooled in the sciences and philosophy would or should detect the students error.

[Quick1]

Speciation has been observed. Try Google next time, before coming to a thread with misinformation.

[Central Scrutiniser]

This should drive the subsection of creationists that hate Catholics batty!

Good for the Vatican! ID is a joke.

[PatrickHenry]

Problem is, Galileo was a scientist who started attacking the interpretation of the Bible when he was questioned about the heliocentric model.

He didn't attack. He was defending his work against attacks by those who said it was contrary to scripture. In defending his work, he said that if scripture appears to be in conflict with what we clearly see, then we must be reading it wrong. That, no doubt, offended the Church, but the telescope existed, and the evidence of the solar system existed, and Galileo was was doing the Church a favor by offering them a way out of an embarrassing situation. Eventually, the Church adopted Galileo's position. But it took them over three centuries.

Right or not, he was not a theologian, and that is what got him in trouble--with Protestants and Catholics alike.

I didn't know he was in trouble with Protestants.

Again, Copernicus came up with the heliocentric model, and received accolades from the Church...

As CarolinaGuitarman points out, Copernicus withheld publication of that work until after his death. Intentionally. He understood the times in which he lived.

[xmission]

First the student uses science to prove darkness and cold do not exist. Lacking the scientific evidence to prove that evil does not exist he recites a philosophical deduction that can neither be proved or disproved which makes it opinion or speculation.

I agree that this old email isn't right for scientific argument, and I did try to say so. I do however believe that evil is the absence of GOD, and that the email does help to understand why GOD is not responsible for the evil of man.

[jec41]

Perhaps I should have said "mankind invented the measurement of time--as in minutes, hours, days, years..."

Maybe you should have because in some primitive tribes that inhabit islands off of Indonesia time is absent and the concept of time does not exist.

[furball4paws]

Our local cable station has been having a 007 fest, so in light of the evolution from Sean Connery to who knows who next, I am taking a pole:

1. Best Bond Girl
2. Best Bond movie.
3. Greatest name.

So to start it off:

1. Kissy Suzuki http://www.jamesbond.com/mmpr/index.php?cat=girls&id=suzuki
2. Hard to say, so many were quite forgettable, but I'll go for Goldfinger
3. Pussy Galore, hands down.

[PatrickHenry]

would be ween

Aaarrrghhhh! "would be seen"

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"As CarolinaGuitarman points out, Copernicus withheld publication of that work until after his death. Intentionally. He understood the times in which he lived."

And, it should be stated again, there was an introduction to Copernicus' book that said that his model was not to be mistaken for reality. He didn't it write this intro, his printer, Andreas Osiander, inserted it without Copernicus' permission. It may have been just as well, because the book would have been burned if it claimed that the Earth moved.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"would be ween"

I thought it was an old English affectation. :)

[js1138]

Galileo didn't have the evidence to prove Copernicus' theory, but wanted the Vatican to change their interpretation anyways.

Ormaybe he just wanted to publish his ideas without being arrested and threatened with torture.

[jec41]

And I think it has been answered--evil comes from an absence of God. We reject God when we sin. Thus, WE create evil

Philosophy and opinion determines evil and it different in every society.

[furball4paws]

pole = poll

and I'll whack myself over the head with it, too.

[Antonello]

Guess I'm still confused on why small changes are evolution. If I understand you correctly, then for arguments sake let's say there is a herd of all white horses. One horse is born with a small black spot. It mates, and the spot is not transfered to it's offspring. Is this evolution or just a mutation? I could see your argument if you were saying that mutations are a step that can lead to evolution instead of saying that they are evolution. Am I wrong?

The evolution of a species is at the population level, not the individual level. On one hand, a single variation in the genetic makeup of one member of a species may very well simply end up being a recessive trait. It also might never even spread with any significance throughout the species population. There is even the possibility that the altered gene doesn't even get spread into the general population at all. For example the originating individual, or its offspring, might not get the chance to reproduce.

On the other hand, if that one change is not malignant in terms of survival in the current environment and the ability to reproduce, then chances are it could at least become an ubiquitous trait displayed by some portion of the population. If the change actually provides some benefit to survival or reproductive success then over time it is even more likely to be propagated.