Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design

[rockytriton]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV0FEO0.html

"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."

Just thought you guys might find this interesting. I don't think many of you are Catholic though.

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by rockytriton

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV0FEO0.html Just thought you guys might find this interesting. I don't think many of you are Catholic though.

I'm certainly not Catholic, so I am not concerned in the least if the Catholic church came out against Intelligent Design. But while you're considering that, here's a recent quote from Pope Benedict XVI regarding this issue:

"Deceived by atheism, they believe and try to demonstrate that it is scientific to think that everything lacks a guide and order," he continued. "The Lord, with sacred Scripture, awakens the drowsy reason and says to us: In the beginning is the creative Word. In the beginning the creative Word -- this Word that has created everything, which has created this intelligent plan, the cosmos -- is also Love."

Also, in his very first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI had rebuked the idea that human beings are mere products of evolution, and that, like his predecessor, John Paul II, the new Pope has a long record of opposition to scientific materialism.

It's also interesting to note that Michael Behe is Roman Catholic.

[Edge]

I dunno, I have heard that the Catholic Church had already accepted Evolution as god's work...

[rockytriton]

Catholics are kinda cooky, their "religion" evolves constantly, one thing that doesn't seem to evolve in it however is the ol' "give us all your money" plea. No offense to any catholics here.

[Stargazer]

Surprisingly insightful to come from them. But I guess they're trying to catch up with the latest developments in science. It made me think of the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?". In short time they have apologised to Galileo Galilei (!), accepted evolution as science, and now the recognition that ID is not science. Maybe there's still hope for humanity.

[Edge]

Originally Posted by rockytriton

Catholics are kinda cooky, their "religion" evolves constantly, one thing that doesn't seem to evolve in it however is the ol' "give us all your money" plea. No offense to any catholics here.

Hahaha... lol.

Catholics have said that the Bible should be taken methaphorically, that's why they don't see a big problem with evolution.

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

Surprisingly insightful to come from them. But I guess they're trying to catch up with the latest developments in science. It made me think of the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?". In short time they have apologised to Galileo Galilei (!), accepted evolution as science, and now the recognition that ID is not science. Maybe there's still hope for humanity.

If you'll re-read this thread, you'll see that the Catholic church doesn't uniformly reject Intelligent Design, in fact the Pope appears to support it. Regardless, I've already said the Catholic church doesn't influence my thinking one way or the other. And to whatever extent the Catholic church may be duped by all the senseless claims that ID is not science just demonstrates even more why I generally ignore the Catholic church.

[Edge]

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

If you'll re-read this thread, you'll see that the Catholic church doesn't uniformly reject Intelligent Design, in fact the Pope appears to support it. Regardless, I've already said the Catholic church doesn't influence my thinking one way or the other. And to whatever extent the Catholic church may be duped by all the senseless claims that ID is not science just demonstrates even more why I generally ignore the Catholic church.

How is ID science, TRoutMac? Science does not explain who created the universe, or why it was created. Science explains how things work and maybe how can we find a good for those things we know.

Yes, I know that ID accepts microevolution and natural selection; yet, I don't see how is it science if the final objective is to explain that everything was designed.

Again, this is just a question...

[Stargazer]

ID is not science. It is, to many people, a way to have Biblical (at least in the Western world) creationism masquerading as science. Many proponents, at least the more sophisticated ones, realise that it's a good idea to pretend to separate ID from religion, in order to make it more accepted. However, I've never seen any kind of actual ID theory. It seems to be quite vacuous.

Some ID proponents say that everything, at least this universe, was created by this designer, while others say it was just life. Some accept the reality of biological evolution, some reject it. Some believe that the intelligently designed Earth is protected from the intelligently designed comets and asteroids by the intelligently designed Jupiter which acts like a vacuum cleaner in space.

I have yet to see an actual hypothesis, what its scope is, what it aims to explain, what evidence supports it, and what predictions it can make, and how the hypothesis does not violate Ockham's razor, and how it can be falsified. I'm looking forward to hear some answers, if there are any.

It's alarming that there are people who claim to be scientists, yet they try to sidestep the usual scientific method, and instead try to push ID or creationism into science education.

[paultrr]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

ID is not science. It is, to many people, a way to have Biblical (at least in the Western world) creationism masquerading as science. Many proponents, at least the more sophisticated ones, realise that it's a good idea to pretend to separate ID from religion, in order to make it more accepted. However, I've never seen any kind of actual ID theory. It seems to be quite vacuous.

Some ID proponents say that everything, at least this universe, was created by this designer, while others say it was just life. Some accept the reality of biological evolution, some reject it. Some believe that the intelligently designed Earth is protected from the intelligently designed comets and asteroids by the intelligently designed Jupiter which acts like a vacuum cleaner in space.

I have yet to see an actual hypothesis, what its scope is, what it aims to explain, what evidence supports it, and what predictions it can make, and how the hypothesis does not violate Ockham's razor, and how it can be falsified. I'm looking forward to hear some answers, if there are any.

It's alarming that there are people who claim to be scientists, yet they try to sidestep the usual scientific method, and instead try to push ID or creationism into science education.

All of that right there sums up the biggest problem with the ID approach at present. For all the posturing it really unless you're an athiest isn't the big "God" equation in the ID position that is actually being rejected. It is the lack of anything concise in the presentation of the ID position. They have problems with macro-evolution. But when you try and get them to define macro-evolution and why it is such a problem what I find is they run around trying to spout off stuff about man could not have evolved from say a chimp. Nothing in evolution actually teaches that every last species out there all stems from one common ancestor at all. If anything, the evidence is that when life got started many different types where already present from nearly the get go. What evolution teaches about apes and us is that we share a lot of traits in common with the rest of the apes. Yet, DNA wise we do have differences. Our own line could have been aplike, yet simular to us a long way back and still have undergone macro evolution as it is actually understood.

Evolution in many ways has evolved itself a long way from Darwin's often misunderstood early on ideas. Macro-evolution as far as one species producing an offshoot species that cannot interbread with its original source line has taken place in modern times under some extreme conditions. By everything science defines a species by one ended up with two distinct species going from an original common line in that case. Yet, cases like that are ignored over and over again by most ID proponents.

What keeps in the courts and in scientific circles being rejected is the lack of demonstratable evidence the ID camp tends to present. They start with an assumption and yet have problems with us making assumptions at the same time. However, I do agree that nothing in the ID presentation actually argues anything for any specific God or Designer or for any specific age of the earth. Personally, I have no problems with those who think there is a designer and that his design used evolution as the method. I can think of several decent scientists that at heart see things that way. But I do have problems when people attempt to disguise religion as science. There is enough junk science taught at times out there to fill up the Vatican, so to speak. I do not think Christians need to add to the list unless they actually have something worth being presented in a proper way and form which they have tended to lack literally from the beginning in this long going argument.