"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

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.

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.

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.

God IS who IS or Is not. There are six philosophical logical deducted and argued ontological proofs both for and against the existence of God. All argument either for or against have been refuted. Therefore what what God is or is not resides in the mind and is the thought and concept of the individual. Such thoughts and concepts can all be proved or refuted thought the philosophical method of reasoning and logical deduction. All such thoughts and concepts will remain only a argument until empirical evidence is discovered or presented. However that time is of consequence to Men is incorrect. It may be of consequence to some Men but not all. It would be of consequence to those men who invented it, defined it, and use it as a tool to determine consequences. However there are primitive tribes that exist on islands off of Indonesia that have no thought or concept of time. There is no measurement of time, any use of time and for them time does not exist. Time is of no consequence to those men.

"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."

So what? We can't prove anything today. How does that make what the Church did right?

"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,"

So, when someone says that your beliefs are wrong, do you then bully them and force them at the threat of confinement/and or death to change their views?

" It didn't persecute him because he didn't accept "their" viewpoint,"

They absolutely did. The only problem he had was his science was showing their religious interpretation to be wrong.

"he went on trial (religious, not secular)"

The distinction was not present then. The Church WAS the law. They had the power to arrest him and possibly put him to death if he resisted, not just excommunicate him.

"for teaching something that was contrary to what was taught by the Church (and by Protestants as well, don't forget). That's all."

And you are defending their use of force.

" 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."

They had no right to do so, unless you consider might as right.

"It was intererested in protecting TRUTH as much as it was still smarting from the Protestant Reformation."

Protecting Truth by crushing free inquiry. Nice motto.

"3) They didn't use force. You are still assuming that the myths about torture and painful punishment are truth. "

I never said he was tortured. Force is more than just beating someone up. The Church forced him to recant and placed him under forced house arrest. If he tried to leave, he would have been FORCEABLY stopped. If he further resisted, he would have been executed.

"His "recantation" was largely a formality."

So, he didn;t have to recant? If he didn't recant, what would have happened to him? He would have had more grave repercussions, the end which would have been death if he resisted. The Church forced Galileo to LIE in order to not get killed.

" It did not damage his reputation or work in any way."

It was an infringement on his right to conscience and free speech.

" No, no, no, and no. He wasn't tortured, nor was he threatened."

Are you illiterate? I said he wasn't tortured.

"He was not threatened with execution."

Because he recanted. If he had not, and resisted, he would have been killed.

"Copernicus published the book and THEN died;"

It was published while he was on his death bed; he was not alive to see it received.

"Even a brief perusal of his Wikipedia entry shows you are totally wrong: "

This proves you are illiterate. That's EXACTLY what I said. I said specifically that Copernicus DIDN'T write the intro, and that Osiander did. The fact remains, the book had an intro saying that the conclusions did not mean that the heliocentric model was true physically. That was NOT what Copernicus had in mind, and if the intro had not been there, the book would have been condemned.

"Notice that the "preface" you mentioned was put there by a LUTHERAN theologian, not Copernicus."

Notice I said already that it wasn't Copernicus, but was Osiander. Learn to read.

"You seem to be motivated more by anti-Catholicism than a pursuit of truth."

I was raised Catholic, my entire family is Catholic. I went to Catholic school from K-12. I, unlike you, will NOT defend the indefensible though. The Church has apologized for the Galileo affair. You apparently would have done it all again if you were there.

"It assumed, along with practically every other scientist and theologin of the day... "

It assumed wrong, and was willing to use deadly force if necessary to enforce it's theology. You are defending theocracy.

"Again, drop the anti-Catholicism and READ."

Coming from such a blindingly illiterate person such as yourself, your insults mean nothing to me.

Umm.

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?

The philosophical proof argued for existence is that one can deny by deducted logic that all things around one do not exist. That only the thoughts of such things exist. Thus the proof I think therefore I exist. It is used in Descartes argument as proof for the existence of God. It infers that all things around one are but thoughts and concepts for their own entertainment and benefit. It infers that one is God. It is the strongest of all the logical deducted proofs of philosophy and no logical argument has been devised to refute it (Solipsism). The theological position is that lacking the proof or the ability to logically deduct proof that would refute solipsism is to simply issue a opinion that one would have to be insane to believe it. A very self righteous assumption. Is that so hard or can you disprove Solipsism.

1) He said it was fact and couldn't prove it. Do you not see the disconnect? You are still in the 21st century frame of mind. The Church WAS NOT ALONE in the belief--scientists and Protestants all shared the same view. 2) He said they were wrong and had no PROOF. That is ludicrous! They said "Don't teach it as fact." He taught it as fact. While we now know it IS fact, HE DIDN'T because he couldn't PROVE it. We can, get it? So remove that frame of reference from your argument--HE COULD NOT PROVE HE WAS RIGHT, yet persisted in telling EVERYONE (not just the Church) that they were wrong. Defend that. 3) You are a few hundred years off. The Protestant Reformation ended the Church dominance in Europe,and that was 100 years before. Even before then, the Plague diminished the power of the Church. In the "Dark Ages," sure, the Church was the be-all-and-end-all. Secular authorities were well in power in the 1600s. 4) They didn't use force. Period. He wasn't tortured, he wasn't threatened. Cardinal Bellarmine, the "Hammer" of the Inquisition, spoke to Galileo--didn't threaten, didn't burn, SPOKE. Period. 5) Considering that the Church was a patron of the sciences, they had every right to say that those who were studying on their dime should not preach and teach something contrary to something they believe. It would be like President Bush hiring Al Franken to give a speech about how wonderful Liberalism is. And again, PROTESTANTS AND SCIENTISTS WERE ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE CHURCH! University professors were some of Galileo's fiercest critics. There are Protestants today who insist the world is 6,000 years old, so do you really think there weren't Protestants then who opposed Galileo's work? 6) "Protecting Truth by crushing free inquiry. Nice motto." More like protecting it by not taking the incomplete, and unproven, studies of one man as proven scientific fact. But attempt nice simplification. 7 & 8) Again, he did his best scientific work while under house arrest. He is known for more than heliocentrism--thoughts on gravity, for one. He broke the rules that he was subject to. Now, had he left the Church and done this entirely on his own, there would've been no problem. Luther lived to see his Reformation completed, didn't he? Hard for the Church to put on trial someone who isn't a member of that Church. He didn't have to recant--he could've left. 9) "Infringement" my arse--those are two concepts that largely didn't even enjoy recognition until Locke. Again, you are speaking from a 21st century perspective. We are talking about the 17th. 10) Copernicus worked on it for decades and suffered NO "oppression" by the Church. Everyone knew his ideas. No oppression. End of story. Publication or not, he was well-known BEFORE he published it. 11) It wasn't condemned, and you cannot say that it would have been. Copernicus wasn't, his ideas weren't, so why would his book have been? It only came into controversy because Galileo was teaching it as fact, "fact" he couldn't prove. This is the 17th century we are talking about--stop applying 21st century knowledge and assumptions! I can see why you think this way, however--you see my WRITTEN RESPONSES, responses obviously formulated after READING, and take it as my "illiteracy." "PROOF" thereof. I made a mistake--I must've missed that part of your post, as I clicked "respond" and read your response on the POST screen, rather than on the thread screen. 12) So your personal Catholic history means you are right? How about actually RESEARCHING the topic. Galileo was wrong to assert AS FACT that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as he couldn't PROVE it. We know it is right, but HE DIDN'T, and couldn't prove it. He was tossing nearly 1500 years of ACCEPTED, "proven," SCIENTIFIC and religious thought out the window, without sufficient proof. What more can be said? 13) You keep forgetting that Galileo's COLLEAGUES, secular scientists and professors, said he was wrong! Your myopic view of the issue is ridiculous--he was Catholic and was tried in a Catholic court. He could have left the Church "in the interests of science" and suffered nothing at the hands of the Church--he still would've suffered at the hands of everyone ELSE though (perhaps not in house arrest, but in patronage and reputation). 14) You must be blind if you take everything I have said and read as "illiteracy." il·lit·er·ate (ĭ-lĭt'ər-ĭt) pronunciation adj. 1. Unable to read and write. 2. Having little or no formal education. I am college-educated, and have personally researched everything I have said here--I haven't relied on false assumptions and lies. I've offered 2 books and how many sites in defense of my argument? You've offered how many? I have far more than what I have posted, as well. What've you got (other than the Protestant Handbook for Attacking the Catholic Church)?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.