Vatican: Intelligent Design is not science

[someguy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...8F7BDS03.shtml

Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'

VATICAN CITY, Jan. 18, 2006

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.

This is surprising to see from a Vatican publication, and I really commend them for saying this.

[Lynn7]

I really don't understand what the guy is saying- first it sounds like he is in favor of the evolutionary theory and yet later he says that we aren't men by chance or necessity. What the heck is he all about? Anyway, I am not Catholic- my church believes differently.

[Vong]

Anyway, I am not Catholic- my church believes differently.

I love Christians. If they don't believe in something the Catholic Church says, they break off and form their own sect. How convenient...

[Tai Mai Jew]

Whoa man, there's no need to be harsh... your mocking and demeaning her religion, that’s not cool.

Forget that though, don’t play it like her church JUST RECENTLY broke off from Catholicism and formed there own church because of an “Intelligent Design” issue. Yeah right... If they DID break away from the Catholic Church, it probably happened a few hundred years before we were born, and definitely before Intelligent Design was even around.

[TheDeadWalk]

The thing that Vong is saying is that often times devout Christians will play up something the Catholic sect has said when they agree with it. When they don't, they play the separate religion card.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
I love Christians. If they don't believe in something the Catholic Church says, they break off and form their own sect. How convenient...

Yeah, it's very convenient how people follow their own beliefs.

[The Heart Collector]

Last time I checked, you don't join a religion to follow whatever the hell you want.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Last time I checked, you don't join a religion to follow whatever the hell you want.

Then why?

PEER PRESSURE?

People are different, and interpret things differently, and believe in different things. I think it's only natural to expect that there will always be a split of larger groups into more specialized ones.

[Lynn7]

Tai is right- the Protestants broke with Roman Catholicism many years ago and the two have remained estranged on many issues. I think I beleive in the important things that the Catholics beleive in like the sacrificial death of Jesus and his resurrection and salvation. I also said that I disagreed with what Pat Robertson said about sharon being punished by God. I disagree with people of any faith, even my own because they are not my God. I have said it before but I beleive in the Bible and when anyone says something that does not jive with the Bible I am not in agreement with them even if it is my own pastor. Luckily, he has not strayed from the Bible's teachings so I am still in agreement with him.

The guy from the Catholic church did not even make a sensible argument, as I mentioned in my post. He certainly is not using the Bible as his basis for anything. Why in the world should I listen to him just because I am a Christian. I have my own brain and my own Bible.

[someguy]

Originally posted by outsyder
Then why?

PEER PRESSURE?

People are different, and interpret things differently, and believe in different things. I think it's only natural to expect that there will always be a split of larger groups into more specialized ones.

Yeah, those were called heresies

I think what he meant was more along the line of joining Catholicism and then saying you won't follow the first 4 commandments.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by someguy
Yeah, those were called heresies

I think what he meant was more along the line of joining Catholicism and then saying you won't follow the first 4 commandments.

I think you go to hell then.

[someguy]

Essentially, yes but this is how I think Vong/Heart Collector are seeing it with joining a religion and having a pick and choose attitude towards it.

By the way, whenever I mention Catholicism/Christianity someone (mainly the Christians) always say 'they're not the same.' I never get any specifics on this, so maybe the Christian schmoes can help me out in knowing what the differences of the two are.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by someguy
Essentially, yes but this is how I think Vong/Heart Collector are seeing it with joining a religion and having a pick and choose attitude towards it.

By the way, whenever I mention Catholicism/Christianity someone (mainly the Christians) always say 'they're not the same.' I never get any specifics on this, so maybe the Christian schmoes can help me out in knowing what the differences of the two are.

Well, when comparing Protestantism and Catholicism for instance, ther are differences in beliefs in transsubstantiation, confessions, the standards of living in Gods's good graces, and of course, there are also cultural and architectural differences as well.

Considering I'm not religious at all, I'm not the best person to ask in this sense.

But honestly, if you're looking into religions, following one you're most agreeable to is probably the best course of action, or you can make your own like L. Ron Hubbard.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I really don't understand what the guy is saying- first it sounds like he is in favor of the evolutionary theory and yet later he says that we aren't men by chance or necessity. What the heck is he all about? Anyway, I am not Catholic- my church believes differently.

Lynn I think what the guy was saying in the article is that the evolution theroy and what the bible teaches are not mutually exclusive.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Vong
I love Christians. If they don't believe in something the Catholic Church says, they break off and form their own sect. How convenient...

Right, because there's no different groups of jews or muslims or anything.

Only christians!

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by someguy
Essentially, yes but this is how I think Vong/Heart Collector are seeing it with joining a religion and having a pick and choose attitude towards it.

By the way, whenever I mention Catholicism/Christianity someone (mainly the Christians) always say 'they're not the same.' I never get any specifics on this, so maybe the Christian schmoes can help me out in knowing what the differences of the two are.

I think the biggest difference between the two denominations are related to the fact that one has a pope whose word is supposed to be infallible and the other has pastors who are thought of as religous teachers who are fallible. This is seen in the way Catholics give their confession to their priests as if the priests are intercessing for them wheras protestants confess directly to God Himself. We don't bow to our pastors or kiss their hands etc. (not that all catholics do this, but they used to in the old days) We also don't call our pastors "Father". There are many different kinds of protestants though and some denominations are pretty close to catholicism and some are far removed. And some forms of Catholicism are close to protestantism. There are born again catholics I think called charismatics if I have that right. I think Episcopals are somewhat close to CAtholics in the way of ceremonies etc.

Other things are that Roman Catholics kind of tend to think of earning their way into heaven through good works where the protestants think that salvation is not earned but given freely by God although they do beleive that good works are expected. I have some very good friends who are Catholic and I think that their beleifs are not different than mine in the ways that really count. Christianity is about what I said earlier- beleiving in Jesus who died for our sins and rose again and whoever believes in him will be saved (going to heaven). Pretty simple stuff really.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
The thing that Vong is saying is that often times devout Christians will play up something the Catholic sect has said when they agree with it. When they don't, they play the separate religion card.

Nope, he's acting as though they're the only religion that has sects.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Nope, he's acting as though they're the only religion that has sects.

Actually, his point was that some sects of christianity endlessly agree with others, but when they differ on a specific issue, suddenly it's they start wrapping themselves around with whatever paraphernalia of their specific church.

That being said, I disagree with Vong a good deal. They agree on each other alot because their part of a single religion, but they disagree with each other, and thus that's why there's different sects in the first place. I don't see anything wrong with Lynn agreeing with the pope about abortion but disagreeing about evolution. She's not part of their church, she simply shares a very common view with them.

[SIREN30]

Catholicism came along quite a bit later than Christianity. Christ was not a Catholic and neither were the early christians.

As far as the different sects go, there definitely are. But I certainly am not one who believes they are all just 'different roads leading to the same place'. The bible says those worshipping God must worship w/ 'spirit and truth'. There can't be bunch of different 'truths'. There is one God he has laid out the acceptable way of worship in his Word. 'By their fruits, you will recognize them'.

[Vong]

Wow...I started this? Cool!

I guess I should have been more clear in what I said.

What I mean, is that being a part of a Christian (or other faiths) faith, is like going to the salad bar; you can pick and choose whatever toppings you want to add to your salad, and whatever you don't like, you leave at the bar.

Such as it was for Henry VIII. The pope didn't want him to divorce Anne Boleyn and the king, so the king broke off from the Catholic faith and created his own Church of England. Essentially taking on the Protestant faith.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Vong
Wow...I started this? Cool!

I guess I should have been more clear in what I said.

What I mean, is that being a part of a Christian (or other faiths) faith, is like going to the salad bar; you can pick and choose whatever toppings you want to add to your salad, and whatever you don't like, you leave at the bar.

Such as it was for Henry VIII. The pope didn't want him to divorce Anne Boleyn and the king, so the king broke off from the Catholic faith and created his own Church of England. Essentially taking on the Protestant faith.

Well, my point Vong is that you can't. If you are a true Christian than you must live by the principles God laid out in the bible and if you aren't willing to do that then you should not call yourself one. Sir Thomas Moore tried to make this clear to Henry VIII and , just like many christians before him, he was killed for it.

[inglourious basterd]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I really don't understand what the guy is saying- first it sounds like he is in favor of the evolutionary theory and yet later he says that we aren't men by chance or necessity. What the heck is he all about? Anyway, I am not Catholic- my church believes differently.

Like I mentioned many, many times before, Evolution is a very broad subject. Natural selection and microevolution are not very controversial. Macroevolution, which requires much, much more evidence from anthropologists (i.e. fossil records), is what is controversial.

The Catholic Church's stance is in between there. (As is the case with most Christians in the scientific community). They're likely arguing that the ideas of microevolution and natural selection are sound; however, they disagree with the conclusions and argument for macroevolution.

[Vong]

Well, my point Vong is that you can't. If you are a true Christian than you must live by the principles God laid out in the bible and if you aren't willing to do that then you should not call yourself one. Sir Thomas Moore tried to make this clear to Henry VIII and , just like many christians before him, he was killed for it.

So what does it mean to be a true Christian?
Is it to be a Catholic?
A fundamentalist?
And are you saying that those groups that don't take the bible entirely as truth are wrong in their beliefs?

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Vong
So what does it mean to be a true Christian?
Is it to be a Catholic?
A fundamentalist?
And are you saying that those groups that don't take the bible entirely as truth are wrong in their beliefs?

A true Christian is one who believes that the bible is the word of God, has developed a love for God, and out of that love has dedicated themselves to him and the doing of his will. Since Christ referred to the scriptures repeatedly, the whole term 'christian' is wrapped up in the bible.

If I didnt feel I had the truth than my faith would be lacking...that's all that can be said on that count.

[Tai Mai Jew]

Being a Christian means you believe that God exists in the context of the Bible.

Seriously though, try telling my non-church going, non-bible reading, Christ-believing friends that they’re not a "true" Christian... they'll probably tell you to fuck off.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Being a Christian means you believe that God exists in the context of the Bible...

"Pssst. You forgot one more thing."

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Being a Christian means you believe that God exists in the context of the Bible.

Seriously though, try telling my non-church going, non-bible reading, Christ-believing friends that they’re not a "true" Christian... they'll probably tell you to fuck off.

Actually, believing alone does not make you a Christian. 'Faith without works is dead', right?

And why would they tell you to ...uhm...get lost? Christ himself gave instructions and told his followers what the mark of a true christian would be. If someone chooses not to do that, then they aren't a true christian. Just like an employee who is stealing from his company isnt a 'true' employee...'true' meaning loyal.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Yeah, what the Vatican said - this has pretty much been my feeling from day one. You can't base science in belief. If you want to involve God in science - use empirical and stop with this, "because we believe it" stuff.

Maybe God's existance is rooted in the science of belief - maybe there are things smaller than atoms where beliefs exist as tangible, measurable things - who knows? What we do know is that we can't discover that stuff by just coming up with another name for things we can't currently prove with science. That's ridiculous, and not advancement for anyone. It's just giving up by sticking to the same theory and method, but just changing the results. That, in science, is called "fudging the results". That's what intelligent design is - fudged results.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Yeah, what the Vatican said - this has pretty much been my feeling from day one. You can't base science in belief. If you want to involve God in science - use empirical and stop with this, "because we believe it" stuff.

Maybe God's existance is rooted in the science of belief - maybe there are things smaller than atoms where beliefs exist as tangible, measurable things - who knows? What we do know is that we can't discover that stuff by just coming up with another name for things we can't currently prove with science. That's ridiculous, and not advancement for anyone. It's just giving up by sticking to the same theory and method, but just changing the results. That, in science, is called "fudging the results". That's what intelligent design is - fudged results.

That's a bold statement. Of course, you can't really say that for sure because you don't KNOW for sure that there is no creator, right? I mean, you said 'maybe' and 'who knows' so doubt is a part of your logic.

[Tai Mai Jew]

Originally posted by SIREN30
Actually, believing alone does not make you a Christian. 'Faith without works is dead', right?

And why would they tell you to ...uhm...get lost? Christ himself gave instructions and told his followers what the mark of a true christian would be. If someone chooses not to do that, then they aren't a true christian. Just like an employee who is stealing from his company isnt a 'true' employee...'true' meaning loyal.

I don’t think the passage you quoted accurately depicts what a “real Christian” should be, or do... The passage is about faith and good works, it's not about being Christian...

Saying a person isn't a "True Christian" suggests or implies that they aren't a Christian... period (at least thats what I get out of it)... might as well say, "You aren't a real Christian"... because that’s what most people will get out of the phrase.

[Tai Mai Jew]

Originally posted by MacReady

"Pssst. You forgot one more thing."

Ahh, the thorns! I forgot about the thorns!!!

[someguy]

Originally posted by MacReady

"Pssst. You forgot one more thing."

Holy Trinity GAWD GET YOUR RELIGIOUS TERMS RIGHT

[MacReady]

Originally posted by someguy
Holy Trinity GAWD GET YOUR RELIGIOUS TERMS RIGHT

I thought that was a catholic thing (which I know Tai Mai isn't).

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I don’t think the passage you quoted accurately depicts what a “real Christian” should be, or do... The passage is about faith and good works, it's not about being Christian...

Saying a person isn't a "True Christian" suggests or implies that they aren't a Christian... period (at least thats what I get out of it)... might as well say, "You aren't a real Christian"... because that’s what most people will get out of the phrase.

Yeah, I know a lot of Christians who have a simple childlike faith and that is a wonderful thing. They don't read the Bible but their faith is strong and good. Now, on the other hand the people who call themselves Christian but go along their own way and push God to the side and do what they feel like- they have not submitted to God. I have been there so I know what it is.

I started with a simple faith and then when i got older went my own way, beleived my own way and pushed God aside- then I explored the different religions and came back to a simple belief but added in Bible study and my life is all the richer for it. Now I feel God's power in my life and that is a wonderful thing. But I know the simple faithful also feel God's power too.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I don’t think the passage you quoted accurately depicts what a “real Christian” should be, or do... The passage is about faith and good works, it's not about being Christian...

Saying a person isn't a "True Christian" suggests or implies that they aren't a Christian... period (at least thats what I get out of it)... might as well say, "You aren't a real Christian"... because that’s what most people will get out of the phrase.

I wasnt trying to say that James 2:26 depicted what an 'real christian' should be...it is only part of it. Someone can say they believe all they want...even Satan believes in God. But it's what they do w/ that faith that is important. And the letter of James was written to his scattered fellow christians....as a reminder to them.

I did express though, in my last post, that the term 'true', as I was using it, refers to 'loyal'. I don't see how you can claim to be loyal to Christ and willfully practicing wrong at the same time. Can you?

[Vong]

I did express though, in my last post, that the term 'true', as I was using it, refers to 'loyal'. I don't see how you can claim to be loyal to Christ and willfully practicing wrong at the same time. Can you?

How can you willfully say something is "wrong"?
No one has the right to claim what someone should or shouldn't do, except your almighty.

Besides, how do you know that your god didn't want people to take the bible seriously? It looks like he doesn't seem to care anyway, or else we'd be having another flood or apocalypse.

The bible is too many years ancient to take literally anyway. In today's society, it seems irrelevant to take most of what is said seriously. That is why there are alot more moderate Christians out there then bible-thumpers.

It's not exactly the "good book" as people claim it to be. There are some nasty, violent and discrimatory passages in there. If people were to follow the bible to the letter, I'm sure they would be arrested.

This isn't just the case for Christainity either. Have you taken a look at the Koran before? There are also some nasty passages in there as well. If more Muslims were to take the Koran more seriously, I'd think the entire Muslim world would be against the West.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by SIREN30
That's a bold statement. Of course, you can't really say that for sure because you don't KNOW for sure that there is no creator, right? I mean, you said 'maybe' and 'who knows' so doubt is a part of your logic.

I didn't state my belief, just one of the thousands of routes that could be taken in attempting to prove God's existance. My point is that you can't just say something is scientific by giving it a scientific-sounding name, and that no one currectly knows how to do this, and no one knows how it can be done. So, who knows how it could/will be done? All I know is that just calling it Intelligent Design isn't doing anything - not even altering a stand, but just changing the name.

Doubt isn't part of my logic - doubt is practically the basis of science, as things have to be proven before becoming facts, and not just being theories. More-so, in order to show how something is factual, you would have to show how it is not. That's just how science works.

Without getting too far into my own beliefs, I think it would be scientifically possible to prove God's existance, but that the attempts to do this are extremely limited. Remember what I said was my "smart ass" theory --- that is why we have the limitiations. It seems that the only two prevailing groups are a) trying to discredit science, or b) trying to discredit spirituality. Obviously there are non-mainstreams folks working in the middle, but they are too far and wide.

I have no doubts, that both can't be totally wrong, nor totally right, and that each side should embrace one another for a common good: More scientists need to start thinking about why billions of people feel a closeness with something they can't measure on instruments, and more spiritual leaders need to start thinking about how science has done us right so many times.

The fact of the matter, as I see it, is that we have not obtained ultimate knowledge in neither science nor religion. Both camps should acknowledge that. The Vatican has made a move toward advancement - toward harmony between themselves and science, so to speak. I applaud that. IMO, Intelligent Design makes a farce out of both creation and science by making them what they are not.

[SIREN30]

Ok.

Well, God plans to make his existence known to all at armageddon so that should save Science lots of trouble.

[Ki'esha Foxx]

I actually thought I was having some kind of weirdo dream when I heard about the Vatican saying that intelligent design is not science. I actually agree with them! I never agree with the Vatican! This was a strange first for me!

It's always been my belief that while evolution, the way I understand it, is bogus, intelligent design tends to drift off into spirituality if not religion, which does not belong in a science class. I've never believed in the theory of evolution, but I don't believe with the Tree of Abraham religions when they describe creation. True, creationism and intelligent design are two different things, but I don't think that either of them should be taught in science classes. If parents want their children to learn alternative theories, place them in a religious school, have them take a philosophy or world religion or even a history class, or teach them yourselves. Since when did schools have to be responsible for everything in a child's life? Last time I looked parents were there for something, not just to tell the kids to go to bed or clean thier rooms.

I'm not against people who believe one theory or another, but to try and force your opinion on others is not a cool way to go. That's one of the main reasons I left Christianity and found my own way. Maybe kids nowadays are too stupid to make up their own minds (which is true of a lot of the students at my local high school) and need to be handed everything in plain black and white. I laugh at those people and feel somewhat cheated by it since I had to go out and do some serious digging before I found something else to believe in. I didn't just accept things as they were; I asked questions. I contradicted my teachers to get them to tell me why I should believe something (like evolution), and if they couldn't support what they read in the books then all the more reason for me to search on my own.

Basically, think for yourself. Don't just take things as they come, even though it would be a lot easier to do than to fight against the current. But it is worth it. And if you still do believe in God or evolution or whatever the hell, good for you; you've found something that you can have faith in and support your reasons why. Way to go, but don't force your beliefs on me. That's just not cool.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by Vong
How can you willfully say something is "wrong"?
No one has the right to claim what someone should or shouldn't do, except your almighty.

Besides, how do you know that your god didn't want people to take the bible seriously? It looks like he doesn't seem to care anyway, or else we'd be having another flood or apocalypse.

The bible is too many years ancient to take literally anyway. In today's society, it seems irrelevant to take most of what is said seriously. That is why there are alot more moderate Christians out there then bible-thumpers.

It's not exactly the "good book" as people claim it to be. There are some nasty, violent and discrimatory passages in there. If people were to follow the bible to the letter, I'm sure they would be arrested.

This isn't just the case for Christainity either. Have you taken a look at the Koran before? There are also some nasty passages in there as well. If more Muslims were to take the Koran more seriously, I'd think the entire Muslim world would be against the West.

Sorry I didnt see this post or I would have responded before.

I am not saying whether something is 'wrong'. I am speaking on the basis of what is right and wrong by the dictation of our inherited consciences and by what is in the bible. If you are a christian, then you accept the bible as the word of God, right? My point is, if you are going to claim to be a Christian, shouldnt you abide by God's laws? He makes it quite clear what is acceptable to him and what isnt.

The bible is a guidebook for us, meant to be taken very seriously. 1 Timothy: 'All scriptures are inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work'. No matter how old the bible is, it's laws, reminders, and orders are absolutely timeless. If everyone on earth applied its principles there would be a perfect human society, as was originally intended. That doesnt make me a 'bible thumper' (not sure what that means anyway) but simply someone trying to do the right thing.

I'm afraid you'll have to pm me with these nasty, discriminatory passages that would require arrest if followed. I've yet to see such a thing. I have seen dear friends arrested for their refusal to go to war because of their biblically trained conscience. But, I hardly think that makes them wrong. Merely attempting to do what is right, in God's eyes.