Posted on 01/30/2006 6:37:09 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Intelligent Design reduces and belittles Gods power and might, according to the director of the Vatican Observatory.
Science is and should be seen as completely neutral on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that science and religion are totally separate pursuits.
Father Coyne is scheduled to deliver the annual Aquinas Lecture on Science Does Not Need God, or Does It? A Catholic Scientist Looks at Evolution at Palm Beach Atlantic University, an interdenominational Christian university of about 3,100 students, here Jan. 31. The talk is sponsored by the Newman Club, and scheduled in conjunction with the Jan. 28 feast of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Catholic Online received an advanced copy of the remarks from the Jesuit priest-astronomer, who heads the Vatican Observatory, which has sites at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, and on Mount Graham in Arizona.
Christianity is radically creationist, Father George V. Coyne said, but it is not best described by the crude creationism of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it.
In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Viennas support for Intelligent Design and notes that Pope John Pauls declaration that evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis is a fundamental church teaching which advances the evolutionary debate.
He calls mistaken the belief that the Bible should be used as a source of scientific knowledge, which then serves to unduly complicate the debate over evolution.
And while Charles Darwin receives most of the attention in the debate over evolution, Father Coyne said it was the 18th-century French naturalist Georges Buffon, condemned a hundred years before Darwin for suggesting that it took billions of years to form the crust of the earth, who caused problems for the theologians with the implications that might be drawn from the theory of evolution.
He points to the marvelous intuition of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who said in 1868, the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.
Pope John Paul Paul II, he adds, told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 that new scientific knowledge has led us to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.
He criticizes Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna for instigating a tragic episode in the relationship of the Catholic Church to science through the prelates July 7, 2005, article he wrote for the New York Times that neo-Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine, while the Intelligent Design theory is.
Cardinal Schonborn is in error, the Vatican observatory director says, on at least five fundamental issues.
One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as rather vague and unimportant, is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection; four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinals statement that neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, Father Coyne says.
Christianity is radically creationist and God is the creator of the universe, he says, but in a totally different sense than creationism has come to mean.
It is unfortunate that, especially here in America, creationism has come to mean some fundamentalistic, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis, he stresses. It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God. The universe is not God and it cannot exist independently of God. Neither pantheism nor naturalism is true.
He says that God is not needed to explain the scientific picture of lifes origins in terms of religious belief.
To need God would be a very denial of God. God is not a response to a need, the Jesuit says, adding that some religious believers act as if they fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God.
Yet, he adds, this is the opposite of what human intelligence should be working toward. We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation.
Modern science reveals to the religious believer God who made a universe that has within it a certain dynamism and thus participates in the very creativity of God, Father Coyne says, adding that this view of creation is not new but can be found in early Christian writings, including from those of St. Augustine.
Religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.
He proposes to describe Gods relationship with the universe as that of a parent with a child, with God nurturing, preserving and enriching its individual character. God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words.
He stresses that the theory of Intelligent Design diminishes God into an engineer who designs systems rather than a lover.
God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity, he said. God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.
The concludes his prepared remarks noting that science challenges believers traditional understanding of God and the universe to look beyond crude creationism to a view that preserves the special character of both.
Since you refuse to answer, this conversation is over.
Too bad I didn't consult the dictionary earlier. It could have saved us a lot of trouble.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines health as "soundness of body or mind; that condition in which its functions are duly and efficiently discharged".du·ly adv.
In a proper manner: a duly appointed official.
I stride off, Aquinasfan's threat to bite my knees off ringing in my ears.
Birth control pills are hormones which mimic the natural hormones which the body secretes in order to achieve certain outcomes.
When menopausal women take synthetic estrogens in order to stave off heart disease and alleviate the unpleasant aspects of menopause (hot flashes, "brain fog," insomnia, emotional lability) -- are they taking poison? How about post-hysterectomy women?
When elderly men take synthetic testosterone in order to continue to have full sexual function, not to mention improved wound healing and normal muscle mass -- are they taking poison?
What about men with prostate cancer, who take estrogens in order to stop the growth of the cancer? Is that poison?
When menopausal women take synthetic estrogens in order to stave off heart disease...
Granting your premise, then in this case, can the medication be properly called "birth control," since the primary objective is "staving off heart disease"?
My assertion regarded "the pill" when it is used as a method of birth control, which is by far its most common use.
In fact, "the pill's" usefulness for treating disease is extremely limited, according to the opinion of doctors that I trust.
And caffeine when it is used as a method of sleep control, which is by far its most common use.
Sickle cell disease? Yes, I consider it to be a disease, a disorder, or ill health.
I know where you're headed, so let me speed this up a bit. The fact that I have an autoimmune disease that happens to protect me from colds, since my immune system is overactive, doesn't negate the fact that my immune system is in a state of disorder or ill health. The disorder causes more bodily harm than good, which is why it's considered to be a disease.
Ping to my post #266. I await your explanation of why Tylenol is a poison and not a medicine.
I daresay that will be only a warmup act for his explanation for caffeine.
A list of complications resulting from sickle cell disease:
recurrent aplastic and hemolytic crises resulting in anemia and gallstonesI suspect this is why sickle cell disease is considered by medical doctors as a disease.
multisystem disease (kidney, liver, lung)
narcotic abuse
splenic sequestration syndrome
acute chest syndrome
erectile dysfunction (as a result of priapism)
blindness/visual impairment
neurologic symptoms and stroke
joint destruction
gallstones
infection, including pneumonia, cholecystitis
(gallbladder), osteomyelitis (bone), and urinary tract infection
parvovirus B19 infection resulting in aplastic crisis
tissue death of the kidney
loss of function of the spleen
leg ulcers
death
Is the immune system overactive, in these cases? If not, then this effect would be bad. But if the drug is being used to minimize pain associated with having a cold, then its effect would be good. I don't know much about Tylenol. I prefer Advil myself.
I notice you completely ignored my previous point that you have defined Tylenol as a "poison."
Sorry. I don't know how Tylenol works. Maybe you could explain it to me. One thing I do know is that people take it to minimize the symptoms associated with cold or flu. So at least its object is beneficial, unlike "the pill," the object of which is induced sterility, or improper function of the reproductive system.
2. If a surgery is being performed for something you might not consider necessary for "proper function" (say, cosmetic reconstructive face surgery after a fire injury) is the anesthesia in that case defined as a "poison," and therefore immoral to administer?
Reconstructive surgery is reconstructive. It is a good, because it is the restoration of proper function and appearance. The good outweighs the evil (privation).
If you want to argue whether health consists of the "proper operation" of the body, you can take it up with the Oxford English Dictionary.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines health as "soundness of body or mind; that condition in which its functions are duly [duly means "in a proper manner"] and efficiently discharged".3. Since you've gone into the subjective waters of "overall good health" as a justification for using drugs which bring the body to an "improper" state, one can easily see that birth control is not a poison if a doctor agrees with a woman's assessment that not being pregnant and unmarried at 20 is better to her overall health than, say, being pregnant and unmarried at age 20.
LOL! Is not sleeping around an option?
Use of the birth control pill to prevent conception is analogous to binging and purging. Rather than binging and purging, why not eat a reasonable amount of food? Rather than using birth control, why not reserve intercourse for marriage? After all, the child naturally begotten by the marital union requires care and nurturing to fully develop, and this is best done by his natural parents.
Thomas Aquinas stated, "It is clear that offspring is the most essential thing in marriage, secondly fidelity, and thirdly [the] sacrament; even as to man it is more essential to be in nature than to be in grace, although it is more excellent to be in grace" (Summa Theologiae IIIb:49:3).So the purpose of marriage is primarily the procreation and education of offspring. The purpose of the reproductive system is reproduction. And the pleasurable nature of intercourse is ordered toward reproduction.The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring, and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory" (CCC 1652). "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children" (CCC 2367).
I leave it to you to argue against common sense, and the dictionary.
Just don't confuse it with having one copy of the gene; that's a tremendous benefit.
Sorry, you're still stuck behind the eight ball.
Nice try, but I'm not letting you evade the issue (which is that the "symptoms" to which you refer are the natural and normal operation of the body to crank up the respiritory filters in order to flush out existing infection and prevent additional ones).
"Thought", schmaught. It's easy enough to watch samples of pathogens at normal body temperature and at a few degrees above normal body temperature and note which ones (the former) are more robust.
Yep.
My caffeine example is even deadlier to Aquinasfan's argument, since the only use for the stuff is to suppress the body's natural sleep cycle so that it conforms to the convenience of the user -- which is precisely his objection to contraception. (Also, as noted upthread, the latter has other medical uses that don't fall wtihin the scope of Aquinasfan's objection; AFAIK the former doesn't.)
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.