"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.

[b_sharp]

"It is taught in textbooks BTW."

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?

[phantomworker]

WTF! This is idiot fanatic talk! Totally irrational.

[plain talk]

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.

[b_sharp]

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

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)?

[plain talk]

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?

[jec41]

Were there no God and no Creation, there would be no evil.

Supposition, assumption, speculation and opinion not supported by a logical deduction of proof for argument. First you would need to argue for logical deducted proof that each of these things exist but could not exist. Further you would have to prove that each of these things are dependent upon the other two and that those two are also dependent. Then you would have to prove that there is a dependency between things even if they do not exist. Then it would have to be explained why the concept and belief of evil exists in societies and others who have no concept or belief that creation is depend on God. The implication is that one such as a atheist is devoid of moral or ethical positions and for them evil does not exist. However Atheists do argue logical deducted proof for moral and ethical positions without the belief either in God or Creation and further that the opposite or those beliefs is evil.

[phantomworker]

LOL!

[b_sharp]

"Is choosing one's wardrobe an action?

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.

[b_sharp]

"WTF! This is idiot fanatic talk! Totally irrational.

Why, thank you! That was very kind.

[jcb8199]

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:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/105/21.0.html

[Aquinasfan]

"Is choosing one's wardrobe an action?

Yes,...

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.

[jcb8199]

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.

[dmz]

So what are the theistic evolutionists (like the Pope) trying to force on us?

[lemura]

the talking snake story can be ruled out

Personally, I always preferred the various tales found in Astrology, Channeling, Hinduism, Gnostic traditions, Neo-paganism, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Wicca, etc.

[b_sharp]

"Must" account for macroevolution? They sure don't sound too confident about that do they? This is an interesting admission."

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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"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?"

It IS a fact. His observations were NOT specious. The Church was a bully, and deserves all the scorn that can be heaped on it for it's attack on free inquiry. Was it alone in stopping free inquiry? Of course not. Has it changed? Absolutely. Does that make what the Church did to Galileo right? Not in the least. There is NOTHING that can make what it did to him *correct*.

"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."

The only reason he *ventured into the realm of theology*, was because the Church was forcing it's theology into places it didn't belong, and forcing people to accept it's position on pain of death.

"True, the interpretation was wrong--but WE know that now. THEY didn't."

So it is correct for a religious institution to use force to make sure people obey it?

" I'm sure you realize that "heresy" only means "An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs."

I am sure you also know that heresy was an offense that could get you thrown in jail or even killed. It's one thing if the Church wanted to ban Galileo from participating in its ceremonies; it's a completely different thing when they FORCE you to recant.

"The crux of the issue is that Galileo was not tortured (as is claimed), "

Not by me, though he could have been if he didn't obey.

" he was not executed,"

He would have been if he persisted in stating his beliefs.

"he lived comfortably until his death, even (as the above site points out) publishing his best work while under "house arrest."


So it was perfectly OK to force him to recant? And keep him confined? All because he dared to ask the wrong questions?


"As for Copernicus, he did exactly what Galileo had the opportunity to do--"Here's an idea, this looks right."

Of course, he was DEAD when the book was published. And the book did NOT say *This looks right*; it said that it was NOT physically true (from the intro) and it was useful for better calculations of planetary motions.

"The point about Copernicus is that the Church is OBVIOUSLY not an enemy to science or opponent of change."

It absolutely was in the 1500's and 1600's.

"It merely wants to proceed judiciously, with as much knowledge as possible."

Perhaps now it does, but in Galileo's time it assume to have the proper knowledge and was willing to use force against anybody who dared to disagree.

[Quark2005]

1. Best Bond Girl - The one in Goldfinger who got painted gold.
2. Best Bond movie - I donno. None of the Roger Moore films.
3. Greatest name. - Pussy Galore. Oh yeah!

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.)

[Aquinasfan]

On the details, not on the basic facts.

Details like multi-regional evolution vs. recent African origin?

Mitochondrial DNA Clarifies Human Evolution

It seems to me that much is unknown.

[b_sharp]

"You might feel differently when your daughter leaves the house dressed like a slut."

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.

[jcb8199]

Beside the point. The RCC was WRONG, and as usual, they had a hard time admitting so. They've been wrong many times in history, and it takes them forever to fix it.

EVERYONE was wrong, not the RCC "as usual." Scientists of his day viewed Galileo as a crackpot, and resented him for his assertions. And though he was right (as we now know, and as we can say speaking from a TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY perspective), he couldn't PROVE he was right, which was the issue at that time. He said he had "evidence" and had none.

One of these centuries down the road they might even admit they helped ex-Nazis escape to South America thu the ODESSA and Der Spinne networks, as well as apologize for Pius' collaboration with both Mussolini and Schicklgruber......Had he stood up to Hitler, he'd have been venerated today as a holy martyr.

Oh please, even a cursory look at evidence would prove YOU are wrong (as is everyone else who asserts this)--I wonder if YOU would admit it... Check out this page: Pius XII and the Nazis.
There is a plethora of info to show what a stupid idea that is. It never even really originated until a Communist wrote a play in the 1960s (a work of FICTION, according to the author himself) that trashed Pius, as obviously the Church is no fan of Communism, and has never been.