"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.

[dread78645]

Paul: the Stranger

The Problem of Paul

[xmission]

I'd rather hear it from you. If you want to make the statement, you should be prepared to defend it.

[xmission]

Actually, maybe this is not the right place to argue this.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You don't seem to think science HAS any limitations.

As far as what it may ask and theorize about there are no limitations. As far as what it can answer, it is limited to human reason. There is no such thing as *the* scientific method, and there is no such thing as pure objectivity on the part of human observers. Furthermore, there is no pure definition of science, but only a general understanding that it consists of "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

There is more than one theory that can adequately explain the objective universe, just as there is more than one way of doing science. The selection of theories itself is not based upon empirical principles. Even the notion that reality favors simple theories over complex ones is a philosophical principle.

What . . . is the use of making a claim you can't test?

You tell me. You make the claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena." Now test your claim. If you cannot test it then it is, as you say, scientifically "useless." Even if a claim is testable, it can only be tested within limits.

Put up or shut up.

The birth of western science may be attributed to religious assumptions regarding intelligent design. What does Darwinian evolution's disposal of any intelligent agent have to offer science? Is there something science cannot accomplish by discarding the notion of intelligent design? Also, please explain what harm has come to science by assuming an intelligent designer is behind all that science can observe and do. Put up or shut up.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I don't grasp the concept of a non-religious understanding of ID.

So every time you see something you know is intelligently designed you suddenly get religion?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" As far as what it may ask and theorize about there are no limitations."

Sure it has limitations, built into what can and can't be tested. Some subjects are for the time being at least off limits for epistemological reasons.

"Furthermore, there is no pure definition of science, but only a general understanding that it consists of "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

What is the experimental investigation of God going to look like? What is the observation of God going to look like? What is the description of God going to look like?

"The selection of theories itself is not based upon empirical principles."

It's not based on whim. Its based on evaluation of evidence, and the testing of that evidence.

" You tell me."

Bait and switch. You make the claim that the untestable proposition that God exists and is responsible for the order we see is examinable by science. What good is an untestable claim? Where does the research go with nothing to test?

"You make the claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena." Now test your claim. "

I have. I wrote it out to you earlier today, you just ignored it. Go back and look it up yourself.

" The birth of western science may be attributed to religious assumptions regarding intelligent design."

Examples. Your uncited assertions are meaningless.

" What does Darwinian evolution's disposal of any intelligent agent have to offer science?"

The same thing that every science's avoidance of invoking untestable claims offers science; a means to test the claims one makes.

"Also, please explain what harm has come to science by assuming an intelligent designer is behind all that science can observe and do. Put up or shut up."

It introduces an untestable assumption masquerading as science. It conditions people to stop looking for testable claims and instead trains people to give up when the least bit of difficulty threatens their inquiry. It's a gutless choice for cowardly people.

Now YOU put up or shut up:

How can one investigate God? What practical use is there of a claim that isn't testable? Who in their right mind would be convinced by a claim that isn't testable? You claim that God is capable of being investigated by science; tell us how or move along.

[xmission]

How can one investigate God?

Prayer

What practical use is there of a claim that isn't testable?

Salvation

Who in their right mind would be convinced by a claim that isn't testable?

Millions

You claim that God is capable of being investigated by science; tell us how or move along.

It's not provable between people who don't believe, but each person, scientist or not, has the opportunity to investigate this personally. It is between him/her and God. Ask God earnestly for an answer. It may take time, but answers are there.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

'What practical use is there of a claim that isn't testable?' (me)

"Salvation" (you)

What if you are believing the wrong untestable claim? Odin may not be very forgiving then.

"It's not provable between people who don't believe, but each person, scientist or not, has the opportunity to investigate this personally. It is between him/her and God. Ask God earnestly for an answer. It may take time, but answers are there."

Do you at least agree that the existence of God is not a scientific question, that it is a theological question that will not yield meaningful results with the limited tools of scientific inquiry? That is the crux of my position here.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I wrote it out to you earlier today . . .

No you didn't. I've been waiting in vain to see you scientifically test your claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena." All you've done is reassert your belief over and over again as if it is "fact." If you cannot test this claim, then it is scientifically useless.

The statement "science can only observe natural phenomena" is a philosphical one. It is one you adopt, and one you think should be enforced by law in public schools.

How can one investigate God?

By doing science.

[xmission]

What if you are believing the wrong untestable claim? Odin may not be very forgiving then.

I have information that you don't have (If I assume wrong, let me know), direct involvement from God. There is no doubt because I have 100% proof.

Do you at least agree that the existence of God is not a scientific question, that it is a theological question that will not yield meaningful results with the limited tools of scientific inquiry? That is the crux of my position here.

I'd agree that science is not equipped to investigate this, and therefore it is not happening. It would be a scientific question if there was a place to start.

I wasn't arguing, just answering your questions.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No you didn't."

Yes I did:(post 473)

"No it isn't. It's a fact. It's tested every time someone tries to introduce a non-natural, non-observable subject into science. Since these subjects can't be tested, and testing is a fundamental part of what science is, the proposition that science can only observe natural phenomena is supported each time this happens."

---

"I've been waiting in vain to see you scientifically test your claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena."

It's not a scientific test, it's a metaphysical reality. Science doesn't deal with the untestable subjects in the same way that theology doesn't deal with microbial reproduction.

---

'How can one investigate God'

"By doing science."

That's the gay jeans argument yet again. If that's the best you have, you have nothing.

Now again:

How do you investigate God? Be specific.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I have information that you don't have (If I assume wrong, let me know), direct involvement from God. There is no doubt because I have 100% proof."

Your *feelings* are not objective evidence.

"I'd agree that science is not equipped to investigate this, and therefore it is not happening. It would be a scientific question if there was a place to start."

Well, then you agree with me that science has limits and that Fester is wrong to claim that science can indeed investigate God.

[ml1954]

There is no doubt because I have 100% proof.

So claims Bin Laden.

[xmission]

Your *feelings* are not objective evidence.

Who said anything about feelings? I never presented my "Feelings" as proof to you or anyone else. I went out of my way to say (or at least try to say) that GOD can't be proven (by people) to someone who does not believe already.

Well, then you agree with me that science has limits and that Fester is wrong to claim that science can indeed investigate God.

Investigate god? Yes! Prove his existence? Only on a individual basis, between each scientist and GOD. You can never know of his existence for sure, until you honestly inquire of him. Like I said, it may take time, but answers are there if you want them.

[xmission]

Where did you see this written?

[ml1954]

See what written?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I went out of my way to say (or at least try to say) that GOD can't be proven (by people) to someone who does not believe already."

In other words, you have no actual evidence just your feelings. I actually have a feeling that a creator had a say in the way the universe is made; I also know that I can't provide any evidence of this and that there is no way I can test this feeling.

"Only on a individual basis, between each scientist and GOD."

Then the scientist is investigating God through means other than science. Which is fine; I have been saying it's a theological and not a scientific question.

"You can never know of his existence for sure, until you honestly inquire of him. Like I said, it may take time, but answers are there if you want them."

But not objective answers/evidence you can have someone else test. Gotcha.

[xmission]

In other words, you have no actual evidence just your feelings. I actually have a feeling that a creator had a say in the way the universe is made; I also know that I can't provide any evidence of this and that there is no way I can test this feeling.

I confused by the above, are you referring to me or you?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

The second part is my position; sorry about the confusion. I have a feeling I am tired today; THAT I have a lot of evidence for. :)

[xmission]

Ok. Sorry if I assumed that you were an athiest (g). I'm tired too!

BTW: There's a great Ronald Reagan tribute thread going on.