Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design

[Booz]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
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

  Believe as you wish. Some people actually try to restrict how thier god could do it, such as not by setting up evolution etc. They have a weak god. Yours sounds better.

But Evolution is still Theory.
Its still taught as theory

 As is gravity, continental drift, black holes, relativity and star formation. It's all science tries to do, develop the best explanation for the evidence at hand & test it, to make predictions and understand reality around us.
Theory does NOT mean wild arnold guess in science.

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

That it happens is a fact, it has been observed in the lab and in the field with some lifeforms.

Just as there is no absolute proof on creation to accept either as abolute fact is a leap of faith

 One is a confirmed scientific theory, based on the weight evidence , as you said above. But, you can still belive as you wish. Just dont try to teach the faith answer in science class.

[Seagoon]

Interestingly enough, all this does is show that Roman Catholicism is not the monolithic organization it officially claims to be and that they too have plenty of theological liberals even in the Vatican. In fact, one of the items being speculated over during the election of the last pope was over whether a bloc might be capable of electing one of the theological liberal cardinals. As it turns out, they weren't and consequently Ratzinger, a theological conservative was elected.

George Coyne's statements contradict not only previous statements made by various Popes (including the current one) they contradict those of other Vatican officials. Theologically, his statement:

"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.” "

is a classic example of process theology, a liberal theology, based on the process philosophy of Whitehead, that developed in the 20th century and has become particularly popular amongst Episcopalian, Methodist, and Roman Catholic theological liberals. Coyne's Process theology directly contradicts the official theological statements of the Roman Catholic church at several points, particularly as it impinges on the omnipotence of God. Coyne's statement, for instance is irreconcilable with official RC theological pronouncements on Creation and providence such as the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993):

"317 God alone created the universe, freely, directly and without any help.
...
320 God created the universe and keeps it in existence by his Word, the Son "upholding the universe by his word of power" (Heb 1:3), and by his Creator Spirit, the giver of life.
...
321 Divine providence consists of the dispositions by which God guides all his creatures with wisdom and love to their ultimate end."

The Catechism at a number of places affirms exactly what Coyne denies, namely that God is constantly involved in His creation ordering, appointing, and bringing all things to their appointed ends. Those statements of course are not popular amongst many European and American Catholics in particular, but they are still the official pronouncements.

Coyne's statements are actually more interesting to me in that they provide further evidence of Rome's increasing inability to discipline or maintain a homogenous theological witness and the increasing philosophical and theological separation between the RC church of America and Europe and the RC church of Latin America and the third world. It will be interesting to see whether the leftward drift eventually affects the entire church so that the RCC eventually looks more like the modern Anglican church, or whether this will eventually precipitate a division.

- SEAGOON

[Dinger]

It's always been that way. It isn't a sign of the RCC going downhill. No church has ever been monolithic, especially the Catholic Church; and their popes -- in spite of what they may claim -- have never been particularly reliable sources of doctrine; well, maybe outside of that first dude. And RCC theologians have never been homogenous. Strict dogmatism is a hallmark of protestant faiths, and some catholics slaving in the errors of the counterreformation.

The debate was going on long before the 20th century ever got messed up in things. The relationship between divine omnipotence, omniscience, Creation and free choice has been a favorite of theological discussion since St. Paul.

John Duns Scotus has some fairly interesting things to say on the subject that are far closer than any modern "liberal theologian". Even that conservative pedant Thomas Aquinas can be cited to the table here.

God's constant involvement can take many forms. But first, what is the relationship between God and Time? If time exists independently of God, than there is something in the universe that God did not create. If God creates time, that God's creative act -- in fact, the activity of God itself -- cannot be measured by time. He is the measure of time; time is not the measure of Him.

Likewise for the order of the universe: He establishes them, but cannot be governed by them.
What we call "science' here is merely a study of the natural function of the universe. It does not exclude a theology of divine intervention; nor does it require it. For all science can tell us, God could have created the whole universe 5 minutes ago (our time). Bringing divine intervention into the concept of science either creates an error of scope (enslaving God to the rules of the universe He created), or denies to humans any form of meaningful knowledge beyond absolute fideism (for all things -- even scripture -- are the result of the arbitrary whim of God, and nothing can be truly known).


Moreover, I fail to see how Coyne's statements exclude any of the catechisms: nowhere does that passage state God did not create the universe freely, directly and without any help. (although your statements seem to suggest that God is subject to time). Moreover, "continuous creation", and participation, and "love" (=actively willing) argue that God did create the universe and keeps it in existence. Finally, evolution lends itself so easily to teleology that I don't see how you can claim it's opposed to divine providence.

[Eden]

I guess if we argue that there is no such thing as "Intelligent Desing" it leaves us with "Unintelligent Design".  

Which makes a whole lot more sense don't ya think?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Interestingly enough, all this does is show that Roman Catholicism is not the monolithic organization it officially claims to be and that they too have plenty of theological liberals even in the Vatican. etc etc etc- SEAGOON

Remember at one time it was also considered heresy by the church to claim the world was anything other then flat also.

[Dinger]

Drediock, I'm so sick of that lie (propagated, not uncoincidentally, during the debate over evolution in the late 19th century) not even going to give you the snopes link.

You are wrong. Of educated persons (and for many years, church education was the only education around), only a few crackpots in the last 2500 years believed the world anything other than roughly spherical. And most of those crackpots are still allive.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Dinger
Drediock, I'm so sick of that lie (propagated, not uncoincidentally, during the debate over evolution in the late 19th century) not even going to give you the snopes link.

You are wrong. Of educated persons (and for many years, church education was the only education around), only a few crackpots in the last 2500 years believed the world anything other than roughly spherical. And most of those crackpots are still allive.

LOL You may be right. or not. I dont know  as I've been unable to get snopes to confirm or deny.

But for your sake we will say you are right here.

So to make the same point. We will move onto a different, more factual example.
In the Church's own words.

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith"  

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

[Dinger]

and they were right to do so. Galileo was maintaining as fact what he didn't have scientific proof for; he was being an bellybutton about it, engaging in polemic for no particular reason. And, as things turned out, Galileo was wrong too.

Hell, outside of the heliocentric universe (with perfect circular motion, wrong on both counts), the things Galileo was brought up on heresy charges for were common knowledge: sunspots? Alleging the sun and planets had "imperfections"? Medieval scholars discuss those details long before Galileo.

Besides, Holy Inquisition or not, that is a determination of Men against Men, not "The Church". abstract concepts do not act in history, people do. Declarations of ideas heretical do come out from time to time -- even on this board you see those mechanics at work -- but that's really beside the point.

The problem is this:
Intelligent Design is a dumb idea. I mean, stupid dumb. What makes it stupid dumb is not the notion that God can intervene at any point, and that no scientific theory can stand against God's will -- that's not a problem. In fact, if you want to deny absolutely the authority of scientific knowledge in this world, go ahead. What makes it idiotic is that it pretends that scientific knowledge must incorporate the assumptions of faith. Scientific knowledge has nothing to do with revealed truth. And if revealed truth and scientific knowledge clash, there's nothing to prevent any believer from rejecting scientific knowledge outright: that's the clause to Ockham's razor that's often forgotten. For while the claim goes:
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (beings should not be multiplied beyond necessity, that is, "don't posit more things than are necessary to explain the phenomenon"), Ockham, being a good theologian (and incidentally, a Heretic, but that didn't stop other theologians from studying or building on his work), is quick to add: exceptis divinis ("except in divine matters").
God can do whatever he wants, including subvert the entire order of scientific knowledge.

But an equally dumb idea is that science necessarily excludes religion. One does not rule out the other. People do not believe that the sky is blue in the same way that they believe God exists.
So our late-nineteenth century friends set up "the great battle between science and religion". And they stacked the deck. They needed a time "when the church ruled everything", so they picked the Middle Ages. Never mind that "The Church" was never monolithic, and in the Middle Ages the Church never had unquestioned or absolute authority. Where the facts were lacking, these "Scientists" manufactured them. That's where the "Flat Earth" story comes from; and that's where much of the Galileo stories come from (well, a lot of that is Bertholt Brecht, a good communist playwright, but hardly an historian).

Anyway, I'd recommend reading The Trial of Galileo and Inventing the Flat Earth. Fun stuff.

[BluKitty]

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."

Wish he would spell this out better, Guess I will...........

I rarely hear anyone useing scientific terms when discussing this, or even understanding the terms they do use.... Sometimes it amazes me what ignorant people they will let spout non-sense on TV or in the press.

Intelligent design is a hypothesis, there is no data to back it up as a theory.  There are no experiments that support this hypothesis.

The theory of evolution was a hypothesis before there was data to back it up, now it is a theory with supporting data, and has long had supporting data from many experiments......

There is no question that evolution is the truth, no offence, but your ignorant of science if you think intelligent design is a theory.  If you want to argue on other terms .... fine, but don't call it science.

[Booz]

And calling it a hypothesis is actually very gracious of you. Scientists develop a hypothesis after careful analysis to attempt to explain the evidence and data collected....

  IDiots posit their answer only when evidence and data is missing.

[MrCoffee]

Can you define intelligent design or me?

[MrCoffee]

Actually the idea that the universe came about from intelligence design sort of blows by mega bandwidth if you catch my drift. To me its common kowledge that we eveolved from evolution. Seems more reaonable to me and I think most reasonable people feel the same despite there religion.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by MrCoffee
To me its common kowledge that we eveolved from evolution. Seems more reaonable to me and I think most reasonable people feel the same despite there religion.

LOL!