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.
--
If my garlic-clove pasta is not science, then science is not the search for truth (or good eating), and is therefore not science (nor good eating)....
If the assumptions are testable, then there should be data, analysis and peer-reviewed publication. When that happens (and none of it is happening now), then it can qualify as science. Otherwise it is just commentary.
Because as we all know, real scientists would never operate from - or be influenced by - philosophical or ideological agendas, or by trivial banalities such as overt threats of tenure removal/career suicide.
/sarcasm>
Blzbba----You have far surpassed the requirements for being awarded the ignorance of anything award.
(sarcasm still off) It's precisely because scientists are human (I'll give some of my old profs the benefit of a doubt here) given to all the influences you mentioned that we rely on data, peer review, reproducibility, constantly questioning old analyses, etc.
Your right, he's much more creative. Much more.
But my friend, what do you beleive he created?
Merely the processes?
Or did he, as he wrote on the ten commandments, create "the heavens and the earth and all that in them is?"
One almost has to admire that level of chutzpah in hypocrisy: Demand that IDers publish peer-review articles, then ruin the careers of those who publish them, thus guarunteeing that no such articles will ever be published.
The day that happened, the evos forever surrendered their scientific "high ground" and put themselves in the position of ardent religionists defending a dogma.
Congratulations.
But my friend, what do you beleive he created?
Merely the processes?
In the beginning was THE WORD... and I'm content to let that be a big, deep mystery.
But as for my day job, I'm not willing to degrade both science and religion by mixing them up... that only generates confusion, and confusion leads to bad judgement, and therefore not so nice things....
Do you believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God?
<< Here's your award for "First Ignorant Catholic Comment of the Thread"!! Enjoy it - you've earned it! >>
Should be simple work for you to give one specific example of ignorance, then.
Dan
A surprise to me, too!
I wonder why the Vatican feels it needs to keep commenting on the subject. Did they have anything to say about the Korean stem-cell scientist who turned out to be a fraud? That's far more relevant to Catholic interest in science than this US squabble.
Excellent point.
This article makes me think that they don't know the first thing about intelligent design.
It is evident that neither of you have any idea as to the nature of Intelligent Design.
The entire creation presents evidence of design.
The fact that human body protects itself from disease, ... heals itself from injury, ... operates longer, more effectively, and more efficiently than any device designed by intelligent men ... argues for Intelligent Design.
Complex systems (like we see in creation) simply don't arise minus intelligent input.
The theory that all of creation might have arisen by chance (i.e. without design) ... is a very recent thought in the history of scientific thought.
The real problem is that, though there is little to no evidence that life could have arisen and evolved without an Intelligent Design, ... that very belief is the one that is mandated in our universities and public schools.
As an engineer (who designs software), ... I can attest that when I happen upon a car, ... I have never wondered if it came about minus any intelligent input.
I recognize the same quality (of design) in the functoning of any living thing.
The scriptures say that ... "the fool has said in His heart ... that there is no God."
And why would such a one be considered a fool ?
Because the entire creation is a testament of God's (Intelligent Design) handiwork.
You don't even accept the premise that God created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is?
What religion are you?
Have you read the ten commandments?
You might want to read down a bit. It might help sove that mystery.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3 KJV)
You wrote: "Well....this is certainly discouraging."
But I'm not discouraged! All Facchini is asserting here makes perfect sense to me. First he says that Darwin proponents "erroneously assume" that their theory "explains everything." Obviously it does not. For one thing, it does not explain the origin of biological life, nor can it pinpoint its first emergence with any precision, nor can it explain or account for how natural processes -- for instance, DNA -- can be as "information rich" as they manifestly appear to be.
And so, "Better to recognize that the problem from the scientific point of view remains open."
Second, Facchini definitely suggests that science alone cannot explain life in general, let alone how individual human beings actually experience it. If so, his observation rings deeply true to me.
The issues involved here seem not to have at all been plumbed for their deep seriousness and importance to the future prospects of the human race. But then, in Pop Kultur, such issues tend to be dismissed.
But that is not Facchini's fault. He's simply an observer here. And he gets the main point. And passes it along to us.
Well, FWIW, my two cents. Thanks so much for the ping, xzins!
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.