Posted on 01/18/2006 3:09:20 PM PST by xzins
Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design' By NICOLE WINFIELD ASSOCIATED PRESS
VATICAN CITY (AP) -
The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.
The article in Tuesday's editions of L'Osservatore Romano was the latest in a series of interventions by Vatican officials - including the pope - on the issue that has dominated headlines in the United States.
The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Darwin's theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution "represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth."
He lamented that certain American "creationists" had brought the debate back to the "dogmatic" 1800s, and said their arguments weren't science but ideology.
"This isn't how science is done," he wrote. "If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it's not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science."
Intelligent design "doesn't belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin's explanation is unjustified," he wrote.
"It only creates confusion between the scientific and philosophical and religious planes."
Supporters of "intelligent design" hold that some features of the universe and living things are so complex they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism - a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific language and say it does not belong in science curriculum.
Facchini said he recognized some Darwin proponents erroneously assume that evolution explains everything. "Better to recognize that the problem from the scientific point of view remains open," he said.
But he concluded: "In a vision that goes beyond the empirical horizon, we can say that we aren't men by chance or by necessity, and that the human experience has a sense and a direction signaled by a superior design."
The article echoed similar arguments by the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. George Coyne, who said "intelligent design" wasn't science and had no place in school classrooms.
Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed in off-the-cuff comments in November that the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticized those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.
--
LOLOL! I guess I do not. Thanks for your post!
Could you please provide a link to some of the tests and their results?
*And Whittaker Chambers abandoned Communism after noticing the Divine Design of his daughter's ear.
"If Intelligent Design is not science, then science is not the search for truth and is therefore not science."
YES!
Those who hate the concept of "God" love to invoke the word "science" as though it meant some narrow doctrine of belief, rather than the search for truth.
Funny, that. It's as though they're the ones with a rigid, narrow set of beliefs...
Look, one thing that neither evolution or ID can provide is a re-creation to support either theory or hypothesis. In other words, there's simply no way either theory or hypothesis can be proven true or false given the span of time we're dealing with in the geological record. If there is a way to do so, I'd love to hear it.
Although this may sound a bit tin foil hatish, I do not mean for it to sound as such. I just simply am convinced the truth is this: there are people who very badly want to prevent 'communication'.
My guess as to their motive is straightforward - they know that folks who 'get God' tend to have a different relationship to money. If everyone started 'getting God', a lot of institutions (like even some churches) would begin to see their cash flows negatively impacted in real time.
So, to protect cash flow, communication itself must be 'managed' by the managers of these institutions, these guardians of the culture.
How? By first understanding the underlying mechanisms of symbol translations. For example, your average consumer doesn't faintly understand how a 'Dictionary' is put together.
But I do .... now ... and it is very, VERY, eye opening.
I have owned a reproduction of Noah Webster's original 1828 dictionary for a few years now.
I have done word comparisons of "simple" words like 'grace', 'truth', 'trust', 'faith' etc, etc....and I have made a very interesting discovery: all Dictionaries exhibit a religious viewpoint.
Noah's original dictionary has an overt Christian viewpoint. Large numbers of words include in their definitions Bible verses to amplify their usage.
"Secular" dictionaries are not 'objective and secular' at all, even though they are advertised as such. And the use of the name of one of the most Christian Founding Fathers even today to sell these 'unbiased' dictionaries is well in keeping with the culture of today.
Until I started comparing modern 'Webster' words to 1828 'Webster' words, I didn't recognize, didn't even have a hint that battles on a large scale are being fought over what ANY word means.
And I think that lack of recognition on my part was, from the outset, intended; yes, I think it has been designed to be that way for many, many decades now; I have confirmed Webster dictionaries from as far back as the 1930's were pretty much towing the cultural lines we see today.
Again ... I don't believe that "Dictionaries evolve over time to reflect current usage" is the whole story - that is what I'm told to believe, but now I am convinced someone is lying.
Today, I am convinced that "Dictionaries are edited over time to manage future subsequent communications..., as well as reflect popular usage of terms".
In short AG, those who own the power to determine 'definitions', and thus own how symbols are translated, therefore manage the quality, and effectiveness, of communication itself. This is ground zero of the cultural war from their perspective. And our side is not going a very good job on the command and control side, while their side is expertly jamming the heck out of us.
Thus, when you soberly reflect on the REST of you elegant post, one could reflect and say, 'hmmmm ... pretty much the essential bullet points are all there, and pithily too!' .... or one could reflect and say, 'hmmmm...I have no clue whatsoever what she is talking about'.
Oh well....I expect Sunday's game in Seattle is going to be fun to watch!! :)
"Can I get the second award?"
Nope. I've had too many discussions with you and know you're not ignorant. Sorry!
LOL - well, I guess that makes me feel better!
"Darwinian Evolution is not presented as a theory in classrooms. It is presented as unquestionable fact."
Wow. Things have changed, then. It was presented to me as "the best explanation available" (paraphrasing) when I learned it in a SC high school.
"That doesn't represent science, that represents an agenda. "
As does the forcing of Biblical Creationism, masking as ID, down our throats.
"given the fact that they're quite often trying to disguise atheism the same way."
That may be, yet I know noone who believes in evolution who'd be considered "atheist".
"You cannot directly observe, you can only hypothesize. "
Which is a good point applicable to ID, Creationism, and evolution. Let's face it - noone was around when Creation allegedly occurred, noone has met the Creator (and lived to tell), and noone has physically observed the slow changes evolution espouses.
"Humans run better than anything intelligent humans have ever designed. "
Wrong! "Nothing runs like a Deere"!!!
"Certainly you've heard of 'figures of speech'.
Surprise ... the Bible uses them.
I'll bet you do too. "
You're right - I do. I also agree that these are figures of speech. Therefore, the Bible can't be taken as literal fact, since there are many instances of "figures of speech", as you pointed out.
Thanks!
"Certainly you've heard of 'figures of speech'.
Surprise ... the Bible uses them.
I'll bet you do too. "
You're right - I do. I also agree that these are figures of speech. Therefore, the Bible can't be taken as literal fact, since there are many instances of "figures of speech", as you pointed out.
So ... because you admit to using 'figures of speech', ... we should assume that you are never speaking 'literally' ?
"So ... because you admit to using 'figures of speech', ... we should assume that you are never speaking 'literally' ? "
Substitute "never" with "not always" and you're correct.
"So ... because you admit to using 'figures of speech', ... we should assume that you are never speaking 'literally' ? "
Substitute "never" with "not always" and you're correct.
On this ... we agree.
The same is true for the Bible.
Absolutely!
Or, so please explaing from the stand point of "evolution" how life on earth began & how humans were created?
I said ID was an unsupported hypothesis.
Well, the Ohio junior high and high school that taught it to me never bothered to present it as such.
As does the forcing of Biblical Creationism, masking as ID, down our throats.
Last I checked, most of the ID'ers were seeking to have it taught alongside Darwinian Macroevolution, not instead of it. The only thing being "forced down your throat" is the plea for some semblance of objectivity. Honest science cannot eliminate the possibility of a theistic explanation, yet in the name of science theistic explanations are not presented as possible.
That may be, yet I know noone who believes in evolution who'd be considered "atheist".
No. They are more likely humanist (though they probably would not say they were). The point remains the same.
Which is a good point applicable to ID, Creationism, and evolution. Let's face it - noone was around when Creation allegedly occurred, noone has met the Creator (and lived to tell), and noone has physically observed the slow changes evolution espouses.
Then why is any theistic explanation outright opposed?
"yet in the name of science theistic explanations are not presented as possible."
No, theistic explanations aren't presented as SCIENCE.
"No. They are more likely humanist (though they probably would not say they were). The point remains the same. "
Not sure how you can pass judgment on people you've never m...wait - you're religious!
"Then why is any theistic explanation outright opposed"
Because it isn't science.
Which shows the bias at play. They're just as scientific as the Darwinian Macroevolutionary ones. You said yourself that the same principle applies to Darwinian Evolution as does ID and Creationism: it was never directly observed and therefore remains in the realm of the hypothetical and theoretical. It's a matter of observing the evidence and drawing conclusions. The scientists who promote Darwinian Macroevolution content that a theistic source is not a directly observable or testable source...but continue to promote an explanation that is not directly observable or testable.
Not sure how you can pass judgment on people you've never m...wait - you're religious!
This coming from the person making blanket generalizations about the motive and intentions of proponents of Intelligent Design...
Because it isn't science.
Then Darwinian Macroevolution is even less so.
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.