"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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

That should be Old-English, as in ye olden times.

[xmission]

1: Brit Ekland (sp?)
2: Anything with an Esprit in it.
3: Have to think about it.

[DarkSavant]

Copernicus had no problem publising his works, and Galileo didn't really bring much more to the table.

He was actually allowed to write a dialogue between the two conflicting systems of thought. Instead of being honest however, he made out his opponent in the dialogue to be a complete numbskull and actually threw in a few underhanded bashes at the Pope also. If you read up on Galileo you'll find he was a nasty contemptible human being, which was more the reason for the controversy than anything scientific.

On a side note, the Copernican system didn't make things much better that the older system, the new theory still needed 48 epicycles to get the planets to operate according to the data. It wasn't until Kepler that we actually had a solid understanding of planetary orbit.

[b_sharp]

Your answer is in the definitions you posted.

"a:Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations,

Evolution applies to the population rather than an individual. A specific allele needs to become fixed or at least on its way to becoming fixed before the population is considered to be evolving. There is an equation called the Hardy-Weinberg Equation that enables us to determine if a population is evolving (they always are) and how fast.

[furball4paws]

I like Brit, too. The problem is taht movie was so bad and her part really insipid, that it detracts from Miss Mary Goodnight.

[xmission]

I think we agree. If it lasts it could fit in the definition of evolution, if it doesn't it's simply a one time mutation.

[Radix]

The Catholic Church also told me when I was growing up about Mary and her assumed deity, and then later denied the virgin birth.

Not consistent.

[xmission]

The problem is taht movie was so bad

Aw come on!!! How many movies have midgets diving from the rafters with knives in their mouths??? (g)

[b_sharp]

Oops. Attack number 2

AntiEvo 2

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Copernicus had no problem publising his works,"

It helps being dead. It also helps having someone write in the intro that the model wasn't physically true, but just a mathematical advance in predicting the motions of the planets.

[Deadshot Drifter]

The Discovery Institute think tank?
That's one tank that is just about out of gas.

[Radix]

Zecharia Sitchin is a weirdo, and his writings are virtually incomprehensible.

I did learn about the Sumerians though. He is not an idiot, just weird.

[Radix]

Zecharia Sitchin is a weirdo, and his writings are virtually incomprehensible.

I did learn about the Sumerians though. He is not an idiot, just weird.

[b_sharp]

Not to be too pedantic but replication did not evolve, the method of replication did.

[xmission]

A specific allele needs to become fixed or at least on its way to becoming fixed before the population is considered to be evolving.

Sounds like we are on the same page. I was questioning a post that said basically that the changes in how you look and how your children look is evolution. Maybe I don't understand your point?

[jec41]

And, of course, if species with asexual reproduction eventually evolved into species with sexual reproduction, then that would be a case of macro evolution of reproduction.

Its a argument and I will give it some credit. Environment can certainly determine the evolution of a species reproduction whether asexual or sexual. However before the changes can occur reproduction must occur.

[DarkSavant]

He was notoriously bad about reporting his findings to other scientists, and many of his other defenses were flat our wrong(his argument based on the tides for example).

[plain talk]

Try giving the matter a tad more thought and reading the post before responding so quickly. Quick can be foolish. Macro evolution has NOT been observed.

[b_sharp]

"Adam's naming of the animals is possibly meant to tell us that evolution--in terms of species' changing--was over at that point."

Unfortunately for your idea at least this particular point is that evolution is For a population to not evolve seven conditions need to be met.

1. mutation is not occurring
2. natural selection is not occurring
3. the population is infinitely large
4. all members of the population breed
5. all mating is totally random
6. everyone produces the same number of offspring
7. there is no migration in or out of the population

If any of these is not met, the population is evolving.

[DarkSavant]

In his letters and from his correspondents it showed he actually feared the Academic elitists of the day much more than the Church.

As for the intro, it was prudent, as he didn't really have the data necessary to prove beyond a doubt what he said. He made very few actual observations in his lifetime and persued his theory more or less as a hobby.