jaaska 0 #1 February 27, 2006 QuoteIntelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article By John Thavis Catholic News Service VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said. The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields. At the same time, scientists should recognize that evolutionary theory does not exclude an overall purpose in creation -- a "superior design" that may be realized through secondary causes like natural selection, it said. The article, published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna in Italy. The article noted that the debate over intelligent design -- the idea that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than adaptive evolution -- has spread from the United States to Europe. The problem with intelligent design is that it turns to a "superior cause" -- understood though not necessarily named as God -- to explain supposed shortcomings of evolutionary science. But that's not how science should work, the article said. "If the model proposed by Darwin is held to be inadequate, one should look for another model. But it is not correct methodology to stray from the field of science pretending to do science," it said. The article said a Pennsylvania judge had acted properly when he ruled in December that intelligent design could not be taught as science in schools. "Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," it said. From the church's point of view, Catholic teaching says God created all things from nothing, but doesn't say how, the article said. That leaves open the possibilities of evolutionary mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection. "God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," it said. What the church does insist upon is that the emergence of the human supposes a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes, it said. The spiritual element of man is not something that could have developed from natural selection but required an "ontological leap," it said. The article said that, unfortunately, what has helped fuel the intelligent design debate is a tendency among some Darwinian scientists to view evolution in absolute and ideological terms, as if everything -- including first causes -- can be attributed to chance. "Science as such, with its methods, can neither demonstrate nor exclude that a superior design has been carried out," it said. From a religious viewpoint, it said, there is no doubt that the human story "has a sense and a direction that is marked by a superior design." source: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm At least they haven't lost their mind in the Vatican... Unfortunately the idea of ID is getting a foothold even here in Finland - so I guess it's true what the article says about it spreading... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #2 February 27, 2006 Yeah, the Vatican has been pretty reasonable of late. John Paul II wrote an excellent commentary on evolution vs creationism a while back, stating that evolution is far more than a hypothesis and cannot be ignored. (Which isn't quite new - Pius XII wrote something similar 50 years ago.) I was amazed at how many catholics were shocked and appalled by JPII's statement. From their reaction you would think they'd be nailing 95 Theses About Evolution on the church's door. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #3 February 28, 2006 Side note - You can talk to some people until you are blue in the face, and they will still think evolution is some secular humanist "myth" that the evil secularists are using to take over the world. But they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and seeing something live is worth a thousand pictures. And with that in mind, I think I'd just show them a mudskipper. I saw them in the wild for the first time in Australia two weeks ago, and they are amazing little fish. They live near puddles. When you get too close to them, they jump out of the water, run across the sand on their fins and dive into another puddle. I don't think anyone could see that and not think that land animals could have come from the water. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #4 February 28, 2006 QuoteYeah, the Vatican has been pretty reasonable of late *shakes head in quiet wonder of such a statement* I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaaska 0 #5 February 28, 2006 The sad thing about this mumble jumble is that it is spreading. I really do not care if people believe in the great spaghetti man or what ever - AS long as they do not try to push their obvious superstitions to national curriculums (science) etc. There is a small group of professional teachers here in Finland who are trying do that... Fortunately it is a very small minority... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #6 February 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteYeah, the Vatican has been pretty reasonable of late *shakes head in quiet wonder of such a statement* Well, they got badly burned over Galileo and they've been much more reasonable about science ever since.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sick_Of_It_All 0 #7 February 28, 2006 I'm by no means religious, pretty much an agnostic, but I do believe there is more than likely a higher power. Either way, I don't understand why scientific and religious beliefs can't co-exist? If there is a "god" or "almighty creator" wouldn't he/she/it have also created evolution, physics, and everything else to do with life and our world? Who knows, I'm not going to get a headache worrying about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #8 February 28, 2006 >Either way, I don't understand why scientific and religious beliefs can't co-exist? For most people, they can. I think it's only the extremists who can't reconcile the two. On the one side, you have people who think that believing in God is just like thinking the Easter Bunny is real. On the other side you have people who think that if evolution is real, then their side 'loses' and their faith is proven false. I think most people (heck, even most scientists) find a middle ground. >If there is a "god" or "almighty creator" wouldn't he/she/it have also > created evolution, physics, and everything else to do with life and > our world? Who knows, I'm not going to get a headache worrying > about it. Yep. And that's the gist of what John Paul II said about the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sick_Of_It_All 0 #9 February 28, 2006 Yes you are correct. I was mostly referring to the extremist as they are the ones that turn this stuff into such a big issue. Life is to short to waste time on figuring it out. I'm just going to assume that when I die everything will be answered... unless what you believe is the afterlife you create for yourself.. in which case I might be in trouble! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #10 February 28, 2006 QuoteI'm by no means religious, pretty much an agnostic, but I do believe there is more than likely a higher power. Either way, I don't understand why scientific and religious beliefs can't co-exist? If there is a "god" or "almighty creator" wouldn't he/she/it have also created evolution, physics, and everything else to do with life and our world? Who knows, I'm not going to get a headache worrying about it. There is a huge difference between belief that creation implies a "creator" and belief in a supernatural being that takes a personal interest in your life and behaves exactly as described in the Bible.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #11 February 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm by no means religious, pretty much an agnostic, but I do believe there is more than likely a higher power. Either way, I don't understand why scientific and religious beliefs can't co-exist? If there is a "god" or "almighty creator" wouldn't he/she/it have also created evolution, physics, and everything else to do with life and our world? Who knows, I'm not going to get a headache worrying about it. There is a huge difference between belief that creation implies a "creator" and belief in a supernatural being that takes a personal interest in your life and behaves exactly as described in the Bible. If the creator of the universe is a sentient being who "creates" by a process predicated on conscious will, then there's no difference at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #12 February 28, 2006 >If the creator of the universe is a sentient being who "creates" by a >process predicated on conscious will, then there's no difference at all. We may someday be able to generate enough energy to create a pocket universe in a lab. It might even then pinch off and go its own way. It may then evolve into a real universe; perhaps life will exist there. That does not mean that the scientist who creates it is just like the Christian God. One theory of God held by many christians is that God listens to all prayers, takes an active interest in them, and knows what they think; that all goes into a judgement he makes at the end of their life. He created the earth, man, woman (from a rib) and the animals. He regularly changes things here on earth to create miracles, and shows himself in various subtle ways to his believers. Another theory is that God set the universe in motion and then sat back to watch it unfold. There is little in common between the two theories other than the word "God." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Everon 0 #13 February 28, 2006 Unfortunately, this will not stop the creationists in their never-ending battle to force their brand of christianity upon everyone else via the biology curriculum. I'm sorry, these folks are ignorant. Having a majority of the general public's approval is a far cry from gaining the approval of the scientific community, which sees it for what it is - a fraud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #14 February 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm by no means religious, pretty much an agnostic, but I do believe there is more than likely a higher power. Either way, I don't understand why scientific and religious beliefs can't co-exist? If there is a "god" or "almighty creator" wouldn't he/she/it have also created evolution, physics, and everything else to do with life and our world? Who knows, I'm not going to get a headache worrying about it. There is a huge difference between belief that creation implies a "creator" and belief in a supernatural being that takes a personal interest in your life and behaves exactly as described in the Bible. If the creator of the universe is a sentient being who "creates" by a process predicated on conscious will, then there's no difference at all. Mighty leap of logic there!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #15 February 28, 2006 All my leaps of logic are mighty. You should see my wife & kids roll their eyes: "Oh, jeez, he's at it again." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sick_Of_It_All 0 #16 March 1, 2006 QuoteWe may someday be able to generate enough energy to create a pocket universe in a lab. It might even then pinch off and go its own way. It may then evolve into a real universe; perhaps life will exist there. That does not mean that the scientist who creates it is just like the Christian God. The scientist who "creates" it doesn't really create anything. He is only RE-creating it. Everything he has to work with is already here. So you are right, he is just a scientist reproducing something in a lab. Like when the first man figured out how to turn energy into fire. He didn't create or invent fire, he just simply reproduced it. Possibly by different means than it would have occured in nature, but he wasn't the originator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #17 March 1, 2006 >The scientist who "creates" it doesn't really create anything. He is only >RE-creating it. Well, it didn't exist before; then it does. Sort of like an electron-positron pair creation in quantum electrodynamics. Re-creation is what happens when you create something more than once. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sick_Of_It_All 0 #18 March 1, 2006 Well the universe has already been created, so wouldn't his pocket universe just be a re-creation of an already existing universe? If not, why then would it be called a universe and not something else if it didn't have similar enough characteristics to the already existing universe? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #19 March 1, 2006 > so wouldn't his pocket universe just be a re-creation of an already >existing universe? Nope. New universe with potentially new physical constants. Most such creations would be unrecognizable to us as universes, since the physical constants might not allow the formation of atomic nuclei or the propagation of EM radiation - or even the three dimensions of space (and the existence of time) as we understand those things. And from everything we know now, we could not even observe them once they pinched off. Most physicists define a universe as a contiguous region of space over which certain physical laws hold sway. There can be an infinite number of them; there's nothing that says ours is the only one, that our physical constants are common to many (or any!) of them, or that we can't create them if we stress space in our own universe enough. Of course, to be able to actually _do_ that would take way more energy than we currently know how to handle, and the process is entirely theoretical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sick_Of_It_All 0 #20 March 1, 2006 That's why I asked. Hah, I wish I knew more about physics, fascinating stuff! Anyway my only purpose for posting on this thread was: I can't understand why extremist can't just believe that their God also created evolution and everything else they are against so they would just shut the F up and quit pushing their damn believes on everyone. But then I guess we couldn't call them extremist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #21 March 1, 2006 QuoteThat's why I asked. Hah, I wish I knew more about physics, fascinating stuff!... Yes it is. The funny thing is that christian apologists would make their case a lot better if they knew more about science and didn't yell STOP whenever someone suggests the Universe might be more than 6000 years old. There is an amazing number of fine tuning problems in Nature (curvature of the Universe, Higss mass regularisation ...). Also the parameters of the Universe seem to be tailored for life and the anthropic principle is not very appealing as an explanation. My take on it is that these problems will be solved in due time by the appropriate developments in science. Discovery of Supersymmetry might solve a lot of them in one stroke. However, I would respect a coherent argument for the existence of God presented on this background. In the hope that I will create a rampage towards the nearest physics department, more info is found here.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #22 March 1, 2006 Quote Also the parameters of the Universe seem to be tailored for life and the anthropic principle is not very appealing as an explanation. Why not? It's always made sense to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #23 March 1, 2006 QuoteQuote Also the parameters of the Universe seem to be tailored for life and the anthropic principle is not very appealing as an explanation. Why not? It's always made sense to me. It does have sort of a "naturalness" problem. "The Universe is like we observe it because we observe it..." It is in a sense too easy and it holds no predictive power.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #24 March 1, 2006 Wow. I just browsed through the Wikipedia talk-pages for "Anthropic principle" and "Fine tuned universe". It was really hard to concentrate though, because I kept hearing this really loud "whoosh" noise all the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #25 March 1, 2006 Some feel that evolution of species reduces the importance of humans. I can see how it could be taken that way, but it is unfortunate their pride gets in the way of learning.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
