In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome

New York Times ^ | January 19, 2006 | IAN FISHER and CORNELIA DEAN

[JTN]

ROME, Jan. 18 - The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

The article was not presented as an official church position. But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI.

Advocates for teaching evolution hailed the article. "He is emphasizing that there is no need to see a contradiction between Catholic teachings and evolution," said Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest. "Good for him."

(Registration required: Try BugMeNot)

[Gordongekko909]

Soooo, God couldn't set up the universe so that life evolves? Or wouldn't, for some reason? He already decided to make space-time curve around large objects. He decided that carbon can undergo sp3 hybridization to form the building blocks of all life. What's wrong with those building blocks of life being "smart" enough to cause the being they compose to adapt to its surroundings better?

[JTN]

Are you saying that the Pope John Paul II called God a liar?

[bobdsmith]

Comparing gravity to the "big bang" ... there is no comparison. It's like comparing apples to oranges. I also see you can't explain the "big bang" either.

Well the universe is expanding. That's an observed fact in science. Extrapolate the expansion backwards and the universe has gone "bang". Equally the force of gravity is an observed fact.

The theories in both are explaining these facts. Ok so objects fall towards each other due to gravity, but why? What is the cause of gravity, why does it work like that? Unanswered questions.

[JTN]

Once you get past the faulty dating methods and the endless hoaxes atheist evolutionist would like you to believe and even you would see there is NO evidence to support people evolving from apes.

My understanding is that the theory of evolution does not claim that man evolved from monkeys, but rather that we have a common ancestor.

[nmh]

"The idea that the seven days need not be taken literally is at least as old as St. Augustine."

Sweetie, it's older than that. It's what the Hebrew states and that was inspired from God. Look up the word "yom" in Hebrew in the context of morning, evening and God says just what He means -

seven literal twenty=four hour days!

My God, means what He says. He is not FINITE. He is INFINITE. If fallible humans want to insist on using their FINITE knowledge (lol) to reject an INFINTE God, well that's up to them and at their peril. The evidence is there for what God clearly states. Unlike evoluntary "truth", His "truth" doesn't "evolve".

[nmh]

"The idea that the seven days need not be taken literally is at least as old as St. Augustine."

Of course!

Geesh! There have always been people who are hostile to God. I misread what you said. It's not about longevity. You can something over and over again and try to make something false true. When dealing with God's Word, it has ALWAYS been seven literal twenty-four hour days. His truth NEVER changes. Either you believe Him or you don't.

[hookman]

[JTN]

No, enough being sensible, are there still any creationists around here to watch meltdown?

Apparently the answer is yes.

[nmh]

"My understanding is that the theory of evolution does not claim that man evolved from monkeys, but rather that we have a common ancestor."

That "common ancestor" from which we "evolved" from is an "ape" according to evolutionists.

[Conservative til I die]

Somewhat misleading title. I saw a similar article on this yesterday. It's not that the Church (or more accurately, the man interviewed) necessarily endorses Darwinism over Intelligent Design or another "creationist" theory. It's that the man interviewed says that the whole dynamic of the argument between Creationism/ID vs. Evolution is flawed. It should be kept on scientific grounds, instead of political/philosophical/cultural grounds.

I think evolution is a pretty crummy theory. The fact that most Darwinists are snide, arrogant atheists with their own political/philosophical/cultural axe to grind is just icing on the cake, but now why evolution is flawed. It's flawed because the science behind it, frankly sucks. And similarly, Intelligent Design or Creationism are not correct as scientific theories just because they come to the conclusion a religous person likes.

[Conservative til I die]

As a Baptist, it is NOT winning ANMY points in our church. I doubt that it's "winning points" with God either to call Him a liar.

Leave it to you to come on to the thread waving your hands and ranting like a loon. Can't keep the sectarian agenda in check for a second, can you?

[Conservative til I die]

There is absolutely NOTHING compatible with Evolution and Creation (Intelligent Design). The order of evolution is all wrong and they never seem to explain that "big bang". Evolution defies common sense and there is NO, I repeat NO evidence to support it. Zilcho!

For those "Christians" who claim to believe in God ... and "evolution" ... tells me they are very confused and mock God. Thankfully my God is no "ape" either.

More hysterics. Evolution stinks as a theory, and the political purposes behind it (to deny God and religion) are very strong. But it's not wrong to believe that God has designed His own systems that we couldn't possibly understand to order His universe. It doesn't make God an ape.

I personally do not believe that God evolved us from earlier primates. But I can believe that God allows species to "evolve" in some microcosmic way (mostly through natural selection, IMO, not someperpetual, progressive mutation from one species into another).

[JTN]

Geesh! There have always been people who are hostile to God.

Like Pope John Paul II?

When dealing with God's Word, it has ALWAYS been seven literal twenty-four hour days. His truth NEVER changes. Either you believe Him or you don't.

If you believe that Genesis is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God, then I would think you would have some problems with a text that presents a God who is admittedly not omniscient or omnipotent.

[nmh]

"Well the universe is expanding. That's an observed fact in science. Extrapolate the expansion backwards and the universe has gone "bang". Equally the force of gravity is an observed fact."

Actually the earth is running down. It is not "expanding". You can extrapolate whatever you wish but you were not there so it's just an hypothesis. Can you repeat it, test it and duplicate it? NO! However Creation as stated in the Bible makes sense - the order and from a INFINITE God it makes even more sense. You can observe graavity. You cannot observe how the earth was formed - BIG difference.
"The theories in both are explaining these facts. Ok so objects fall towards each other due to gravity, but why? What is the cause of gravity, why does it work like that? Unanswered questions.

Gravity is a fact. We can see it, repeat it etc.. We cannot say the same for the creation of the earth so the "big bang" and "gravity" have nothing in common. Why gravity works like that is because that's how God decided it should work.
Trying to compare gravity to the "big bang" makes no sense in comparison - apples to oranges. Since you were not there when the earth was formed, all you present are hypothesis.

[JTN]

the political purposes behind it (to deny God and religion) are very strong.

"I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious sensibilities of anyone."

Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1869.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It'll be interesting to watch if and how many follow-up articles are published in "L'Osservatore Romano" which support this professor of evolutionary biology.

It only takes one to start the ball rolling and give Darwin the imprint of rational and approved possibility.

[Cyclopean Squid]

This thread reminds me of something. But what? Oh, now I remember:

[Conservative til I die]

"The idea that the seven days need not be taken literally is at least as old as St. Augustine."

Of course!

Geesh! There have always been people who are hostile to God.

St. Augustine hostile to God? There's a few good words to describe you, but I'll leave it by calling you a fool.

[MineralMan]

"Are you saying that the Pope John Paul II called God a liar?"

I do believe that's exactly what NMH is saying. Interesting that NMH, apparently, believes that his knowledge of the Bible and of Christianity is superior to that of Pope John Paul II.

Perhaps the Catholic Church selected the wrong person to become the new Pope. Maybe they should have chosen NMH.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Personally I see it as sick.

Thankfully, there is a cure.