Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design

[Silat]

Some more common sense....

Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 18, 5:04 PM ET
 


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.

Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.

In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."

[Gunslinger]

wooohoo now the catholics have weighed in the debate should be finished.

[NUKE]

you lost me at "the Vatican's......."

[Delirium]

Lets see... one side doesn't want religious exposure at all, and the other side is too busy covering up for priest's molesting children in the United States while blaming it on the media.

Frankly, I don't like either side...

[storch]

what??? the same church that condemned galileo?  say it ain't so!!!

[Samiam]

Why does the Vatican need a Chief Astronomer and what do you suppose he does all day when he's not weighing in on Intelligent Design?

He sounds like a rational person. Do you suppose he can also convince the church that it's OK to promote birth control and safe sex in the worlds poorest countries?

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Samiam
He sounds like a rational person. Do you suppose he can also convince the church that it's OK to promote birth control and safe sex in the worlds poorest countries?

Different people have different point of interests.
It's not like a person whos up for one thing should be also up for the other and also several others.
Surely there are people over there who thinks the churchs policy over condoms is wrong, but they don't say a word about "the intelligent design".

Originally posted by Silat
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.

Theres a great weakness in this if somebody wants to consider it as a science: why nobody has theories on how the higher power became to exist. I mean... if something is created by someone, the someone also has to be created.
Just as well the higher power could be non-existant, which the theory doesn't consider as an option.

[MrCoffee]

450 AD -- 1600 AD

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Samiam
Why does the Vatican need a Chief Astronomer...

Because they have some really nice telescopes & cant use them to look at chicks
http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/Instr.html

[Maverick]

I never understood why there is such a schism over this. I guess it's because I really have no problem with the concept that a God (diety, whatever) set all those physical laws in motion, including evolution in a fluid dynamic universe.

Same thing that I do not hold to the theory that he only created the universe as a home for human beings. Why should He limit Himself to one race of humans and not set several intelligent beings in different parts of the universe? Think of it, if He were only concerned about us (humans on Earth) why would he need to create more than just this galaxy?

Why should He be limited to OUR imagination and concepts? If we (as it says in our religious texts) are created in His image, did he have to create us in his total image and abilities? Obviously not, as no one goes around every day raising the dead creating universes and so on every week.

[Booz]

The schism is over teaching it in US high school science classes. It's just not science. Teach it all you want sunday morning in church.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Silat
Some more common sense....

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."
God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity ," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."
Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"

Good..God.

 Someone in the Catholic church finally says somethig I can agree with

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Maverick

Same thing that I do not hold to the theory that he only created the universe as a home for human beings. Why should He limit Himself to one race of humans and not set several intelligent beings in different parts of the universe? Think of it, if He were only concerned about us (humans on Earth) why would he need to create more than just this galaxy?

Why should He be limited to OUR imagination and concepts? If we (as it says in our religious texts) are created in His image, did he have to create us in his total image and abilities? Obviously not, as no one goes around every day raising the dead creating universes and so on every week.

Same reason people think that "created man in god image" literally means means physical image. Even though IO have yet to see a man  looking like a burning bush that hasnt first set himself on fire
Same reason that for  a couple hundred years Jesus had blond hair and blue eyes.
Same reason why Blacks think he was black and mexican picture him looking like a mexican.

Human arrogance

[cpxxx]

This won't end the debate. The problem both evolution and so called 'intelligent design' have is that the contradict the bible.

Some christians believe the bible is 100% true. Some contributors to this forum. It's called faith. The fact that doesn't stand up to the smallest scrutiny is ignored and they will not be moved from the position.  With all due respect to them their beliefs belong with a belief in fairies and the Elvis was an alien. But good luck to them. It gets them through the day.

Meanwhile the rest of us get on with the realities. Evolution is fact and in my opinion not incompatible with religious belief.  Intelligent design has no merit whatsoever, it simply being an absurd attempt to get religion into American schools by the back door. In other countries where religion is taught in schools. It won't even be considered. It's a strictly American phenomenon.

The Catholic church to it's credit realises this and has dismissed it for what it is, a fraud.

The Evolution/Creationism debate is no debate. It's science versus faith. Mutually incompatible.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by cpxxx
Evolution is fact .

they found the missing link?

I beleive evolution is the way things went and are still going.
I beleive in both
That God created the earth and man and all that good stuff using and within the boundries of scientific laws and principles that are still holding true today and that evolution is merely ours and other creatures adapting to their diet and envirionment and changes thereof

But Evolution is still Theory.
Its still taught as theory

the weight of physical evidence points to evolution but there is still no absolute proof that makes it and absolute fact

Just as there is no absolute proof on creation

to accept either as abolute fact is a leap of faith