Posted on 11/18/2005 10:14:11 AM PST by shooter223
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" - whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
On another note, what are you attempting to illustrate with the pictures of various skulls? How accurate shall we say the dates are? What portion of 'evolution' do you say they support? Many people may agree on 'facts'. Their agreement does NOT, in and of itself, constitute truth. So now where shall we go?
That problem is easily rectified with parental involvement in the child's life.
Besides, do you really want a Liberal teacher speaking to the subject of the Divine? Changing the subject does not change their bias.
They already have Genesis in hand. I would venture to suggest that for them, the question is not whether God created the universe and life; the question is how God created the universe and life.
No it's not it's easily rectified with swift rulings in the favor of parents who notice the schools doing this.
Can't happen when it's illegal for parents to question curriculum.
1000bc ???
You obviously do not know your ancient history.
Egyptians' hieroglyphics go back 5000 years and beyond. The Sumarians left us 'cunniform' writing dating from 6000bc.
Go to the library and crack open some books on ancient history...or, try 'googling'.....
By the way.....much of the Hebrew Scriptures writings can be traced back to the " Epic of Gilgamesh"( 6000bc) ....( google)
Finally, do not swallow whole any Christian teaching when it purports to be "truth". What is truth for one is a lie for another.
Such natural explanations are more often than not philosophy of science and not science itself. The scientific method is not self-explanatory. I mentioned no "proofs" for the God of Revelation.
Philosophy is limited in what it can show: a First Mover, an Uncaused Cause, a Designer. This does not prove the God of Revelation. For that you need Faith. Faith tells us that the First Mover, the Uncaused Cause etc. is God, that is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Scriptures and Christianity.
I was speaking to daily involvement in the child's life and their involvement in the house of worship of their choosing.
When I grew up, my parents knew all the subjects my brothers and I were taking and part of the dinner table discussions were always on what my three brothers and I learned that day. That's parental involvement.
And it is not illegal for parents to question cirricula. That's defeatist propaganda.
Finally, someone who reads ancient history!
You refer to the Sumarians and the Epic of Gilgamesh, no doubt. Most of the Hebrew Scriptures were lifted from that ancient saga.
What evidence will you provide, or are you simply stating your personal belief?
Science is based on and inseparable from philosophy and natural faith.
Science is based upon the scientific method, which includes observation and reproducibility of results. Until we can create another universe ex nihilo in the lab, the questions of who or what is behind creation is not one for the field of science.
Math is also not science (at least not a natural science). Should we keep math out the science class too?
Yes, we should keep math out of science class. This is idiotic. Math is repeatable and reproducible. It is science.
Believing in a Creator (which I do) is not science.
SD
Philosophy is limited in what it can show: a First Mover, an Uncaused Cause, a Designer. This does not prove the God of Revelation. For that you need Faith. Faith tells us that the First Mover, the Uncaused Cause etc. is God, that is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Scriptures and Christianity.
The scientific method, and indeed science itself, is merely an artificial construct of man. But it is not an arbitrarily designed tool; it has been crafted to do a job. Namely, to aid man in understanding the natural existence around him. To subject God to this tool is to ask man to define Him by virtue of what is not included in nature. Therefore, if this is the measure of God, then whenever something is at last understood it is another piece of God that is taken from Him. I don't like that idea.
Philosophy is limited by what can be imagined, not by what can be shown. It provides sustenance for thought, and through thought, spiritual enlightenment. Within this realm man stands a chance at strengthening his grasp on God's true glory.
Science seeks facts, philosophy seeks truths. Facts require evidence, truths thrive on understanding. Which would you prefer to use to know your God?
http://www.townhall.com/news/ext_wire.html?rowid=35517
Nothing the parents can do.
That's why my kids will be going to Private Catholic School.
Google, " Epic of Gilgamesh". The proof is in the reading....passages lifted straight out of this saga and transposed to the Hebrew Scriptures.
The ' Flood" is one instance.
The early Hebrews came from Sumaria ( think Abraham )who carried with him Sumarian folklore which passed was along as oral history before it was written down.
What evidence will you provide, or are you simply stating your personal belief?
The Seven Tablets of Creation springs to mind.
The 9th circus is just an absurdity masquerading as a part of the judiciary. Everyone and their brother knows that.
Well the Supremes didn't exactly set the record strait on property ownership... (we'll see how the new members weigh in on such things)
And yes, even I have to be reminded of that...which is why we faithful gather together; so that one can be strong when another is in doubt.
May God bless you and keep you.
I was responding to your statement that "Not many (if any) scientific 'facts' exist to support the 'Theory of Evolution'."
I supplied the photograph of a number of nice fossil skulls, along with chimp and modern human skulls, noting that these are facts.
On another note, what are you attempting to illustrate with the pictures of various skulls? How accurate shall we say the dates are? What portion of 'evolution' do you say they support?
What I was trying to illustrate is that there are a lot of facts to work with. The dating is another subject, but there is a lot of evidence there too. Radiometric dating is a whole broad field with geology, nuclear chemistry, and a variety of other disciplines involved. It might not be exact, but it appears from several dating methods and corroborating evidence that it is pretty accurate.
Many people may agree on 'facts'. Their agreement does NOT, in and of itself, constitute truth. So now where shall we go?
The goal of science is not truth--you need to seek elsewhere for that. What science tries to come up with are well-supported theories. This sums it up well:
In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.[From an NSF abstract cited by RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.]
You state: "To subject God to this tool is to ask man to define Him by virtue of what is not included in nature. Therefore, if this is the measure of God, then whenever something is at last understood it is another piece of God that is taken from Him. I don't like that idea."
I have not said the scientific method is the measure of God. Science is a tool that investigates nature in a determined fashion with tests using measurement and quantification.
The debate is about empirical observations of an order/design. Philosophers have argued that this order means that there is an Orderer responsible for the observed order. Christian revelation provides that this Orderer is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Scriptures and Christianity.
St.Paul argues for this in Romans 1:Since the creaton of the world...God's eternal power and divinity have become visibile, RECOGNIZED THROUGH THE THINGS HE HAS MADE. (emphasis added) Romans 1:20
God is not subject to the tool. The tool reveals an order and design, which ultimately comes from the Creator.
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.