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]

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... :shrug:

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Stargazer]

Life does not share a common ancestor? Must be something new that I haven't heard of yet.

[paultrr]

Life does not share a common ancestor? Must be something new that I haven't heard of yet.

 

Every bit of evidence in any hard form we have at present suggest that multiple types of single celled organisms tended to appear all around the same time ( this is a relative term in itself) in our planet's history. Since there was multiple types there all around the same time the implcation would be that it is possible our different species lines all started from seperate general lines to begin with. This does not negate the fact that within specific species lines one can have break off's into further seperate species. The main point was is that most of the people who try to refute evolution, especially the evolution of man, all tend to think we started as say a chimp and evolved on into man when the actual case might be that while related to say chimps we may have been seperate from them all the way back through every stage of evolution. Evolution only tends to show us that whatever our original ancestor was it shares common traits with the rest of the ape family meaning that we are an evolved primate.

 

The general evolutionary assumption with little hard evidence as far as the record goes is that all the ape line decended from some screw like common ancestor. But nothing in that assumption actually implies that each ape line had to come from the same actual screw line. There could have been seperate species within that line to begin with allowing for further devision into seperate species further along in history. Our own line could be seen based upon the evidence as being just such an example where at times in earth's history more than one example of manlike apes existed on this planet at the same time. Our genetic code and that of say Neanderthal are only slightly different. While there is no evidence we actually interbread with each other there is also no evidence we could not have all been derived from a common parent line. But there is strong genetic evidence we where even then different genetically from say a chimp.

 

The central debate is over where we all diverged. But the evidence has never outright shown that all these different lines where exactly the same from the start to begin with. That leaves open the possibility that they might be somewhat seperate lines all the way back to those single cell ones which is something that is so often over looked by both the creationists and a lot of those who support evolution in all this debate.

 

Forgetting the whole God or Designer issue for a moment one thing outsiders to the Christian faith have a problem with seeing is that Creationsist generally see man as seperate and important because of the whole in the image of God issue. They reject evolution because it seems to imply that God's image could be that of an ape. But what if the ape in this case while simular to all the rest genetically and behaviour wise was different all along. Then their argument tends to fall apart.

 

For speculation case here even if the Biblical idea of a special creation act was true even in the Bible everything is all made from the same general source material and all tends to share aspects in common. That in itself would make sence with the Creator taking a simply basic model and varying it to create all the different life forms out there. In itself on the surface that would imply some version of evolution in its strick sence weither one wants the time to be millions of years or seven literal days because you'd have a common genertic base being varied to provide all the differences there. What Christians fail to notice in all their readings of the Bible is that even God takes a basic set of materials, varies how it is arranged and ends up making a lot of different species out of something far simplier to begin with which is exactly what evolution is tending to show us happened in nature. There is nothing in evolution or the Bible that in itself cannot be shown to be compatable. The major differences is science starts with nothing outside of nature being a source of information while the Bible from the get go makes the assumption there is something outside of nature who it terms as the Creator. On a certain level if there is some great Designer it is possible we with science have simply discovered the exact process that designer used to come up with all the different types of life out there. I say possible because there are Christians who are scientists who except both ideas as being true and have no problem with that at all. There are also believers from other religions who look at this almost the same way.

 

Science and religion do not have to be enemies at all. While Einstein tended towards a deist position, he often found science without religion to be rather dead and stated so. (see http://www.deism.org/alberteinstein.htm#Science%20and%20Religion for a bit on this.)

[rockytriton]

Science and religion do not have to be enemies at all. While Einstein tended towards a deist position, he often found science without religion to be rather dead and stated so. (see http://www.deism.org/alberteinstein.htm#Science%20and%20Religion for a bit on this.)

 

I still hold my belief that the law of conservation of matter proves that some sort of supreme being does exist. If all the matter that currently exists didn't come from some sort of supernatural being, then it would violate the laws of conservation.

[Edge]

I still hold my belief that the law of conservation of matter proves that some sort of supreme being does exist. If all the matter that currently exists didn't come from some sort of supernatural being, then it would violate the laws of conservation.

It's the law of matter-energy conservation, right?

[Stargazer]

Every bit of evidence in any hard form we have at present suggest that multiple types of single celled organisms tended to appear all around the same time ( this is a relative term in itself) in our planet's history. Since there was multiple types there all around the same time the implcation would be that it is possible our different species lines all started from seperate general lines to begin with.

I would like to know what evidence there is for, let's call it uncommon descent. I was under the impression that the evidence for common descent is very good. I suppose it's possible that life arose independently in different areas of the planet, but the idea is that life we know today do share a common ancestor.

 

This does not negate the fact that within specific species lines one can have break off's into further seperate species. The main point was is that most of the people who try to refute evolution, especially the evolution of man, all tend to think we started as say a chimp and evolved on into man when the actual case might be that while related to say chimps we may have been seperate from them all the way back through every stage of evolution. Evolution only tends to show us that whatever our original ancestor was it shares common traits with the rest of the ape family meaning that we are an evolved primate.

If we were separate from the chimpanzees all throughout evolution, then how can we be related to them at the same time?

 

The general evolutionary assumption with little hard evidence as far as the record goes is that all the ape line decended from some screw like common ancestor. But nothing in that assumption actually implies that each ape line had to come from the same actual screw line. There could have been seperate species within that line to begin with allowing for further devision into seperate species further along in history. Our own line could be seen based upon the evidence as being just such an example where at times in earth's history more than one example of manlike apes existed on this planet at the same time. Our genetic code and that of say Neanderthal are only slightly different. While there is no evidence we actually interbread with each other there is also no evidence we could not have all been derived from a common parent line. But there is strong genetic evidence we where even then different genetically from say a chimp.

The genetic evidence suggest that the chimpanzee ancestors and our ancestors had a common ancestor, and Neanderthalensis and we shared ancestors. We were closer to them than to the chimpanzees. I doubt that it's more likely that chimpanzees and humans come from different ancestors, and I've never heard that this would be the case either.

 

The central debate is over where we all diverged. But the evidence has never outright shown that all these different lines where exactly the same from the start to begin with. That leaves open the possibility that they might be somewhat seperate lines all the way back to those single cell ones which is something that is so often over looked by both the creationists and a lot of those who support evolution in all this debate.

What different lines do you see then?

 

Forgetting the whole God or Designer issue for a moment one thing outsiders to the Christian faith have a problem with seeing is that Creationsist generally see man as seperate and important because of the whole in the image of God issue. They reject evolution because it seems to imply that God's image could be that of an ape. But what if the ape in this case while simular to all the rest genetically and behaviour wise was different all along. Then their argument tends to fall apart.

Some Christians think they can reject evolution because it's not compatible with the Bible, which is true. But then again, it really doesn't matter what the Bible says, if reality gives a different message.

 

But what suggest that we are not apes?

 

For speculation case here even if the Biblical idea of a special creation act was true even in the Bible everything is all made from the same general source material and all tends to share aspects in common. That in itself would make sence with the Creator taking a simply basic model and varying it to create all the different life forms out there. In itself on the surface that would imply some version of evolution in its strick sence weither one wants the time to be millions of years or seven literal days because you'd have a common genertic base being varied to provide all the differences there. What Christians fail to notice in all their readings of the Bible is that even God takes a basic set of materials, varies how it is arranged and ends up making a lot of different species out of something far simplier to begin with which is exactly what evolution is tending to show us happened in nature. There is nothing in evolution or the Bible that in itself cannot be shown to be compatable.

Yes, it seems that people can interpret the Bible in any way they wish just to make it look "compatible" with reality. Why try so hard at doing that, when they can simply put it aside completely and focus on reality instead? Why is it so important to interpret it until one can hardly recognise it anymore?

 

The major differences is science starts with nothing outside of nature being a source of information while the Bible from the get go makes the assumption there is something outside of nature who it terms as the Creator. On a certain level if there is some great Designer it is possible we with science have simply discovered the exact process that designer used to come up with all the different types of life out there. I say possible because there are Christians who are scientists who except both ideas as being true and have no problem with that at all. There are also believers from other religions who look at this almost the same way.

As long as they realise that religion is unscientific and should be kept away from science at all times, I suppose they can claim to believe in anything they want. Religion and science are dramatically different, in that science is a way to understand nature, while religion is, well... not. Their methods are different and not compatible.

 

Oh, and I reject the distinction between the natural and the supernatural.

 

Science and religion do not have to be enemies at all. While Einstein tended towards a deist position, he often found science without religion to be rather dead and stated so. (see http://www.deism.org/alberteinstein.htm#Science%20and%20Religion for a bit on this.)

Some people probably think that based on something Einstein said, one is free to quote him in order to promote any kind of religion as if it was important to science. This is of course not true in the slightest. Science does not need religion, and religion needs science even less. How can religious dogma survive if reality turns out to be different?

[paultrr]

Look at the earliest fossel evidence we have out there. There is literally hundreds of different life forms that all existed during a general period of time recorded in that record. If one examines that record closely in an attempt to break down the period of time they all first arose and then began to fill the niches, so to speak, that period appears rather rapid. Push this back further into the age before that we have very little evidence from. That period when everything was mostly simple celled organisms and it is easy to see that all those different organisms of the later period could have all evolved from different types of single celled organisms.

 

As for how we and the rest of the apes could be simular and different I mentioned the screw like ancestor line. Even today, with say the common rodent line there are many different types of rodents. They all share a simular genetic makeup. But under evolution no matter how one looks at this after thousand and millions of years of evolution they are diverged enough that you end up with different species alive at the same time.

 

In the first case, since no actual fossle evidence exists from the single cell era it is pure assumption that they all must be from a common ancestor. In the second case, at the present as far back as we trace the human and chimp line we find differences between the two. Recently some findings have pushed the line humans came from back further than anyone thought they where actually seperate. No one has actually to date discovered say an exact missing link in the classical sence of the word that shows both lines where ever the same. That translates, when one lacks exact evidence, to having a theory based assumption ruleing the day in how we explain evolution that actually may or may not eventually be shown to be true.

 

Any theory we have is always subject to further research and observation. What people often fail to realize is scientific theory is not like math where a theory can prove itself. Science requires observational evidence before anything can become accepted as fact. We have large gaps that every scientists knows exists in our current knowledge of exactly what transpired on earth. Cosmology relates itself well to the start of life in this universe. But every model we depend upon there is constantly changing as we gain more and more knowledge. At one time science thought it understood most everything about how solar systems form. But we have learned through Hubble and other means that we only had part of the picture there. For every change we discovered there are implcations when it comes to how earth formed and ultimately how life arose here.

 

I am not suggesting evolution is wrong at all. What I am suggesting is that our present taught model is subject to reinterpretation simply because we do not have as exact a picture as we often tend to act like we do. Does anyone actually know the exact athospheric conditions of the early earth when life arose? Remember that model has changed many times over in the last decade or so. That is just one example where we are not that sure of things yet.

 

If you want to mention genetic traits being simular when you look at life in general on this planet it is only a certain amount of chemicals in our DNA that gets all altered to make everything different. Nothing about evolution precludes some of those changes being there from the start with several different lines arising at about the same time. Evolution often points to environment effecting change. Since when does anything we know about the early earth or the present one demand that those conditions be the same across the globe at the same time. That in itself ought to tell you that more than one single celled organism arose around the same general time. If there was more than one then its possible not all of these lines are exactly from one parent line.

[Erasmus00]

I still hold my belief that the law of conservation of matter proves that some sort of supreme being does exist. If all the matter that currently exists didn't come from some sort of supernatural being, then it would violate the laws of conservation.

 

I've made this point several times. The conservation of matter and energy is a direct result of the laws of physics being symmetrical in time. If time had some sort of begininng then the symmetry breaks down, and we would no longer expect energy/matter to be conserved.

-Will