"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper

Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | 01/19/06 | Tom Heneghan

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Organized matter and laws do not exist by virtue of theological claims."

The point is we have NO IDEA why things exist the way they do. Saying that it's a designer/God is a theological, not a scientific claim.

"Is it just because a good many people attribute them to God; just because organized matter and laws concur with certain ideas deemed "religious?"

Gay jeans argument.

" I said public "context."

*Public context* could mean anything. A gevernment school is not a street corner. The children there can not just walk out and leave. While they are there, they are at the mercy of whoever is teaching.

" The law prohibits any one them to be favored or discriminated against on a religious basis."

The law prohibits them from establishing religion. Teaching ID (a theological claim) is an establishment of religion.

"Public schools are obligated to allow religious viewpoints a hearing, whether it be in a class orientated to one of the sciences, or a class orientated toward sports."

No, they are obligated to teach NO religious viewpoints. Any teaching of a religious viewpoint as true is an establishment of religion.

" Allowing the presentation of certain points of view is what you call "indoctrination?"

When you have children as captive audiences in your class and you start teaching them a theological claim, you are indoctrinating them.

"Or maybe you think they need to be controlled lest they hear the wrong ideas."

That's your view. You think people need to be taught theology, your theology, and it burns you inside that they can't be because of a Constitution you despise.

"You are free to indulge non-theistic notions by themselves in your own little school house."

A government run school can ONLY teach non-theistic claims. You have it totally backwards (as usual).

"Once you open the doors to the public and have the public pay for them, then their views get to be heard, too, no matter how afraid you are that you and your children might be "indoctrinated."

The Constitutional ban on the establishment of religion disagrees with you. It's precisely because the public is paying for these schools that any theological claims have to be curtailed. When you pay for the school with private monies, you can teach any religious view you wish. Not with public money.

[Right Wing Professor]

Doesn't the ToE say that just ONE change, being propagated, is what is responsible for all the diversity today?

No.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The point is we have NO IDEA why things exist the way they do. Saying that it's a designer/God is a theological, not a scientific claim.

BS. When we come acrioss a humanly designed artifact we have at least some idea why it exists the way it does. As I said, there is nothing inherently "religious" about organized matter that serves a purpose, whether we know it is humanly organized or not. You've built yourself a nice straw man. Hold it tight.

Teaching ID (a theological claim) is an establishment of religion.

Please specify which religion is established by suggesting that organized matter that behaves according to laws may be the result of intelligent design. You have thuosands to choose from, none of which the governement may favor. Please explain to me how such a religion is established when the non-theistic points of evolution are also allowed at the same time. It has always been my contention that both points of view should be presented to the "captive" audience. That has not been your contention. You are not the champion of free inquiry you paint yourself to be.

A government run school can ONLY teach non-theistic claims.

You've swallowed a lie and become its mouthpiece. The public is made up of both secular and religious people. Does that fact escape you?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Are we supposed to limit our beliefs to only what the Bible says?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"When we come acrioss a humanly designed artifact we have at least some idea why it exists the way it does."

The universe is not a human artifact, so alas, we have no weighted evidence to say there was or wasn't a designer of it.

"As I said, there is nothing inherently "religious" about organized matter that serves a purpose, whether we know it is humanly organized or not."

We also know there is no way to test the idea that a designer is responsible for matter as it is. That's the crux of the problem. Any claims for (or against) such a designer are not scientific but theological.

"Please specify which religion is established by suggesting that organized matter that behaves according to laws may be the result of intelligent design."

The State Religion.

"Please explain to me how such a religion is established when the non-theistic points of evolution are also allowed at the same time."

Evolution takes no position one way or the other concerning the existence of a God; teaching it cannot be an establishment of religion.

"It has always been my contention that both points of view should be presented to the "captive" audience."

Because you want the government to force your theological claim on children. Fund your own school.

"That has not been your contention. You are not the champion of free inquiry you paint yourself to be."

No, I am a champion of free inquiry; I am not a champion of the Government teaching theology. You are free to inquire about what ever you wish Fester, you are not free to force someone else's children to be taught your every whim.

"The public is made up of both secular and religious people. Does that fact escape you?"

No, it escapes you though. It is because of the wide range of theological views that people hold privately that the government cannot favor any. You can't get your theology to be taken seriously as science (a label you crave for your claim but whose methods you despise because it excludes your theology) so you want to force schools to teach it anyway.

[xmission]

I hate to admit it, but the creationists do seem to have thrown out the most insults so far in this thread. (at post 330)
Post 330???

Hi Elsie!
I had only gotten to post 330 at that point. The night before it was much closer. I hate to see the creationsist throw swipes. Makes Godly people look bad.

[xmission]

You hit on my pet peeve. Idiots around here think evolution has to do with the creation or the origins of life.

I was taught in science class how life began from nothing, and evolved all the way to where we are today (This was almost 40 years ago). I was taught this as one complete system...evolution. It appears either that the origin of life has been separated from evolution by teachers, scientists, etc. since that time, or that my teacher was teaching something he was not supposed to link.

[Fester Chugabrew]

We also know there is no way to test the idea that a designer is responsible for matter as it is. That's the crux of the problem.

It would be a problem if science were confined to theories and data. But it is not. It must also operate with shaping principles. And no, claims for a designer are not necessarily "theological." Even if they were, that idea may not be excluded from public schools by law.

The State Religion

This is not what the Constitution means when it speaks of the establishment of religion. It speaks of a particular set of religious beliefs, not a generic summary of them all. The federal government is prohibited from establishing Southern Baptist teachings, for example as a state religion. Organized matter and intelligent design are not Southern Baptist ideas. There are not even by necessity theological ideas. Besides, allowing for the teaching of ID is not "establishing" a religion. Perhaps it would be if only a religious understanding of ID were allowed to be taught.

Evolution takes no position one way or the other concerning the existence of a God; teaching it cannot be an establishment of religion.

Evolution typically, but not always, rules God out of consideration. That is taking a position about God. It is taking a non-theistic shaping principle, which is fine. But it is not the only way to understand or explain the existence of a wide variety of species, or organized matter that behaves according to laws.

Because you want the government to force your theological claim on children.

As I've repeatedly said, the notion of intelligent design in the first place is not inherently theological. It is not inherently theological when we find human artifacts,. Why should it be inherently theological just because were are not sure who, or what, is responsible for the design? Furthermore, you obviously do not trust people to think for themselves. You equate free inquiry and expression with "force" and "indoctrination." You cannot tolerate both shaping principles to be enunciated out of an irrational fear. In that regard you are more superstitious than creationists.

Fund your own school.

That directive is best reserved for people like yourself who cannot tolerate pluralistic teaching in public schools. Think how better off you can be, adopting and funding a shaping principle for your science that leaves God out of the picture, and not mixing it at all with any theological notions. You and your children will be smarter, better bred, morally superior, and free from having to think about troubling notions like intelligent design. You'll have all those high paying jobs and be free of all superstition and religion. Go for it!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It would be a problem if science were confined to theories and data. But it is not. It must also operate with shaping principles. And no, claims for a designer are not necessarily "theological.""

Science does not deal with untestable assumptions like the existence of a God. Any such claims are necessarily theological.

"Even if they were, that idea may not be excluded from public schools by law."

No, theological claims are specifically excluded from government schools by law.

"This is not what the Constitution means when it speaks of the establishment of religion. It speaks of a particular set of religious beliefs, not a generic summary of them all."

ID is not a generic summary of all religions; it's a specific theological claim.

"Organized matter and intelligent design are not Southern Baptist ideas."

Organized matter is not ID. ID is a religious claim.

" Evolution typically, but not always, rules God out of consideration."

No, it really doesn't. It may rule YOUR interpretation of God out (YEC), but that's your problem. Evolution like all science does not take a stand as to the existence or nonexistence of a God.

" As I've repeatedly said, the notion of intelligent design in the first place is not inherently theological."

This is false.

"It is not inherently theological when we find human artifacts,. Why should it be inherently theological just because were are not sure who, or what, is responsible for the design?"

Because we do not know who, what, or how the designer is/does it's designing. We have no way of knowing this. Any claims that we do are theological in nature, not scientific.

"You equate free inquiry and expression with "force" and "indoctrination." "

That's a lie. I equate free inquiry with the right to explore whatever you want, on your own dime.

"You cannot tolerate both shaping principles to be enunciated out of an irrational fear."

One is scientific, the other is theological. You are the one being irrational.

"Think how better off you can be, adopting and funding a shaping principle for your science that leaves God out of the picture, and not mixing it at all with any theological notions."

All science does that already. For centuries now. You want to go back to the time before Galileo and Newton.

" That directive is best reserved for people like yourself who cannot tolerate pluralistic teaching in public schools."

I will still be paying for your religious teaching in the public schools. Nobody should have to pay for another person's religious instruction.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science does not deal with untestable assumptions like the existence of a God.

It most certainly does. The claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena" is an untestable assumption in and of itself. Or how do you propose to scientifically test that assumption?

[Theo]

It is interesting that a Catholic school would teach that God is stupid, rather than intelligent.

[highball]

He persisted in teaching as fact that which he could not prove, without doubt, was fact. It is for that reason that he got in trouble.

How long exactly did it take the Church to admit its mistake?

If "proof was all the Church was after", as you claimed, surely they admitted their error immediately once the proof was offered, right?

How long did that take, again?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It most certainly does."

No, science cannot deal with untestable assumptions. By definition. Otherwise, it would be a useless epistemological tool. Anything and everything could be called *scientific* if you could include untestable claims. It's understandable why you wish to change the definition of science, since your claims aren't testable. You are desperate to have your claims be called science, because you know that that will make your claims sound more prestigious. Yet you despise what science really is. If right wing post-modernists (as opposed to the more well known left wing types) like you succeed though, science will have the same connotations as *unfounded guess* and will have the same prestige as astrology and ESP. The prestige you wish to expropriate will have been destroyed. It will be a Pyrrhic victory.

"The claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena" is an untestable assumption in and of itself."

No it isn't. It's a fact. It's tested every time someone tries to introduce a non-natural, non-observable subject into science. Since these subjects can't be tested, and testing is a fundamental part of what science is, the proposition that science can only observe natural phenomena is supported each time this happens.

"Or how do you propose to scientifically test that assumption?"

It's a metaphysical reality. Science, by definition, does not deal with the untestable. No matter what you WISH science to be.

[PatrickHenry]

If this debate goes on ...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I think you need one of these :)

[Fester Chugabrew]

It has become clear that you neither know the definition of science nor its limitations. Science must begin with untestable assumptions. In certain fields it makes testable claims, but it seldom, if ever, arrives at objective proofs. Testable claims are not what define science, but are only a small part of it. Likewise, science cannot take place with only theories and data. It must also have shaping principles. In your case one of them happens to be non-theism, but non-thesim is not testable. By your own requirements for science you have negated the capacity to honestly engage in it yourself.

You say that the statement "science can only observe natural phenomenon" is a "fact," but you have not proposed a way to test that very statement. You just stomp your feet and insist it is a "fact," but it is a fact only in your head. It reveals precisely what your biases are, and also explains why you give credence to philosophies that call themselves science.

Your notion of what constitutes science is as old and subject to error as that of Francis Bacon.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Paul is wrong on so many things..."

(shhhhh!...you'll disturb the coma)

"...it's amazing that he's even considered a Christian."

Why wouldn't he?

He invented Christianity by paganizing the teachings of Jesus.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Perhaps it would be if only a religious understanding of ID were allowed to be taught."

I don't grasp the concept of a non-religious understanding of ID.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It has become clear that you neither know the definition of science nor its limitations."

That's a joke right? You don't seem to think science HAS any limitations. ANY claim can be science to you. You have redefined science as you have most other terms you use.

" Science must begin with untestable assumptions."

Absolute horse manure. It HAS to start with testable propositions, or else science isn't competent to say anything useful about the claim. What the hell is the use of making a claim you can't test?

"In certain fields it makes testable claims, but it seldom, if ever, arrives at objective proofs."

In EVERY field it makes testable claims. Being testable is not the same as being provable. Science never arrives at proof.

"Testable claims are not what define science, but are only a small part of it."

Testability is a fundamental part of what science is. Always has been. Always will be. Without being able to test your claim, it's cannot by definition be science.

"Likewise, science cannot take place with only theories and data. It must also have shaping principles."

Yes, there are metaphysical realities that must be obeyed. One is that untestable claims are outside of science. Untestable claims, because they are untestable, have no usefulness. Again, testable does not mean provable.

"In your case one of them happens to be non-theism, but non-thesim is not testable."

Non-theism isn't a claim about the natural world. It's a necessary starting position for scientific pursuits, because theistic claims, for or against, are untestable.

"You say that the statement "science can only observe natural phenomenon" is a "fact," but you have not proposed a way to test that very statement."

How do you study something that isn't natural or observable? How do you study something that isn't testable? You keep wanting to have untestable, unobservable claims to be a part of science, yet you have NEVER provided ANY means of doing so.

" Your notion of what constitutes science is as old and subject to error as that of Francis Bacon."

So, now you are against science as it has been practiced for the last 400 years. Let's make a catalog of all the successes that science has had in the last 400 years following my assumptions, and let's see what your position has accomplished. Put up or shut up.

[xmission]

He invented Christianity by paganizing the teachings of Jesus.

How so?