"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.

[From many - one.]

"...regularly sells nuts to, and shares their women with, Brazilian traders who stop by.

It would be rather interesting to watch selling without number concepts.

[ml1954]

If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact..

How? What additional 'proof' has there been since Galileo?

[jec41]

You might want to goggle up something like nations IQ.
There are some countries with a average IQ of 65. They would be lucky to earn a D in a class for monkeys. Thats 33 points lower than the 98 mean in the US.

[PatrickHenry]

Being that I am a historian and not an astronomer or physicist, I wouldn't know what evidence to produce. Given the history, doubt was removed when Newton developed his laws of planetary motion. Parallaxes work into it, something which was not observed until 1838 (Copernican theory holds that you would observe a shift when viewing a star, though supporters explained the lack of one as being that the stars were too far away to see). It was Newton's work, ultimately, that proved the heliocentric model.

I don't think Newton proved the solar system. He explained the motion of the planets better than before, but he provided no proof that the earth orbits the sun. And I don't know what parallax has to do with this issue. It was ultimately used to determine the distance to the nearest stars, and the method certainly relies on the solar system model to provide the base of the triangle involved (the diameter of earth's orbit, for observations made six months apart), but that's not proof of the solar system either. Frankly, I don't know of a scientific proof even now. The solar system is a theory, and like other currently accepted theories, it's supported by evidence and it makes useful predictions.

Your insistence on Galileo's lack of proof is not a good argument for your position. He had great evidence, and that's really all that any scientific theory has.

[xmission]

I can understand the IQ thing, and I'm not debating this. I do have a hard time understanding how there could be a guy anywhere who can't comprehend "If I drink another beer, I'm going to have to have a wee soon"

[edsheppa]

The science definition of speciation is ...

There's a pretty good discussion here. Scroll down a bit for a critique of the biological species concept.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Isn't it a shade inconsistent to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you would welcome legal judgments against teaching intelligent design as a viable explanation for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws?"

1) That is not what ID claims to be.
2) Students in a government school should not be subjected to religious instruction, which ID is.
3) Nobody here is saying that ID/creationist proponents can't do as much *research* as they want, nor that they can't write articles, books, make speeches, whatever, to try to persuade people that ID/creationism is correct. The line is drawn when they want to use tax dollars to teach their religious based claim to students.

[jec41]

can't comprehend "If I drink another beer, I'm going to have to have a wee soon"

Don't know. I am allergic to hops and cannot drink beer.

[b_sharp]

"There are some countries with a average IQ of 65. They would be lucky to earn a D in a class for monkeys. Thats 33 points lower than the 98 mean in the US."

Don't rely on IQ tests as a measure of another cultures intelligence, there are far too many problems with them.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Inquisition, now there's another original argument."

As an argument that the Church did in fact use force against *heretics*, yes. And as an argument that they didn't have to be Catholics anymore, yes. And remember, Protestants were considered heretics too; if you were in Catholic lands and were protestant, and the Inquisition was around, you could have trouble.

The Protestants were of course just as bad weeding out heretics as the Catholics were. There was nothing particularly unique about what the Church did. Again, that isn't the point here as we are discussing the Church's treatment of Galileo.

"Galileo said they were wrong, but offered no proof."

I hope you don't mean he offered no evidence. If you mean prove as in absolute proof, well, the Church didn't have any either. There never will be for a scientific theory.

""Your Honor, my client is not guilty." "Have you any evidence?" "Well, no, but he isn't!" "

Yep, you are claiming he had no evidence. What an ignoramus.

"You single out the Church because it put him on trial, you criticize it because it was wrong, standing in the way of "free thought" and so on, and yet you ignore the fact that the Church was not alone in their opposition to Galileo."

The historical fact is that these other groups who would have opposed him had no chance to, since he lived in Catholic Italy. I also didn't bring up what the Chinese thought, or the Hindus, or the Muslims. I am sticking to the facts of the case, you are wandering all over with irrelevant points.

"Copernicus said the very same thing (yes, he published the year he died, but his ideas were well known) and nothing happened to him."

No, his book(the intro) said that the model was not true physically. If he had made it clear that he really thought his model was physically correct, and this got out in his lifetime widely, he would have been in a lot of trouble.

"Galileo was on trial not just with the Church but in the minds of EVERYONE, because he taught as fact that which he could not prove as fact--scientists, professors, and theologians alike all looked at him the same; it just happened that he was under the Church's jurisdiction. "

Before you said that he could have moved somewhere else to escape Church punishment; now you say that everyone was against him, so what would the point have been to run away?
Even IF everybody was against them, they didn't have the power to do anything against him; the Church did. And the Church had no right to silence him.

"If Galileo could have decisively proven that what he was teaching AS fact actually WAS fact, we wouldn't even be having this conversation."

Why didn't the Church have to prove ITS position in the same way you and it demand Galileo had to? You make it sound like Galileo just said, "It's true because I said so." That's not the case at all. He provided evidence for why and how the earth could be moving. Was it all the evidence there is? No, but that's irrelevant. It was at least as good as the evidence the Church had.

The point is, The Church has said that they were wrong, but you are sticking up for their own discarded position.

[b_sharp]

"There's a pretty good discussion here. Scroll down a bit for a critique of the biological species concept.

That is a good link.

However I didn't use the strict inability to interbreed which implies the inability to produce progeny or to produce only sterile hybrids in my definition. The definition I use and the one that is commonly used despite the fact that the change between one species to another is extremely gradual and thereby difficult to determine at the best of times, is the cessation of gene flow. Even though this definition is not entirely accurate when speaking of plants and definitely not with asexually reproducing species, it is useful during these debates where most are concerned with animals (Metazoans).

Whether the two groups being considered do not interbreed because of the physical limitations such as geographical location or sterile hybrids or they simply do not recognize each other as the same group, the gene flow is highly restricted. This restriction allows each group to evolve in different directions.

NOTE: John Wilkins from TalkOrigins is currently working on another FAQ further explaining the use of 'speciation' and the difference between what science means and what creationists mean and why they are wrong. As soon as it's ready I'll pass it along to PatrickHenry.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I'm curious as to what is particularly "religious" about the inference that, where there is organized matter, an intelligent designer might be involved. I'm also curious as to where in our Constitution the free exercise of religion is prohibited in a public context. Lastly, as I said, I find it rather inconsistent for you to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you argue for squelching free inquiry by law.

[PatrickHenry]

As soon as it's ready I'll pass it along to PatrickHenry.

Ah, something may be stirring in the janitorial pool.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm curious as to what is particularly "religious" about the inference that, where there is organized matter, an intelligent designer might be involved."

The only evidence going for it is the theological claim that an intelligent designer (code name for God) exists. Also, it's the gay jeans argument.

" I'm also curious as to where in our Constitution the free exercise of religion is prohibited in a public context."


A government school is not a public forum.


"Lastly, as I said, I find it rather inconsistent for you to paint yourself as a champion of free inquiry when you argue for squelching free inquiry by law."

I argue for no such thing. I am arguing against government indoctrination of religion in government schools. ID is a theological claim. People are perfectly free to do any research they want in it(though ID'ers don't actually do research about the designer). They can try to persuade anybody they wish that their theological claim is correct. Just not with a captive audience in a government school.

[jec41]

Don't rely on IQ tests as a measure of another cultures intelligence, there are far too many problems with them.

Actually most fall within acceptable error and method is steadily improved. There are many who would seek to discredit any test that would measure intelligence for social or political reasons.

[b_sharp]

"Ah, something may be stirring in the janitorial pool."

Oh that? I'm just boiling the lavatory cleaning rags to sterilize them. If you don't stir them they stick. The smell should go away in a couple of days.

[firebrand]

Thank you. I'll check out that link.

[firebrand]

Will check it out.

[Elsie]

And is it likely a viable species could be derived from two individuals?

Why not?

Doesn't the ToE say that just ONE change, being propagated, is what is responsible for all the diversity today?

[Elsie]

DANG!!

What did I miss at #395?


(I just KNEW I shouda not gone to supper!)