Intelligent design not science :

[cappie]

Vatican newspaper says intelligent design not science


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 L'Osservatore Romano has said.

Catholic News Service reports that 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 recognise 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 Tuesday's Italian language edition of the paper, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna.

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.

SOURCE
Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article (Catholic News Service 17/1/06)

[Era Might]

I disagree to an extent, that we can't draw religious or philosophical conclusions from science. It's true that science (and other disciplines) have a certain rightful autonomy, but, as St. Paul says, from the beauty of created things, their author is seen. Who's to say an argument for God can't be made from certain scientific evidence (or a lack of scientific evidence)? This should not lead to shoddy scientific inquiry, of course. We shouldn't dogmatize our arguments, because they are based on tentative premises. But they can still be valid. The interdependence of disciplines is a venerable Catholic tradition; indeed, Theology, as the queen of all sciences, is the most important discipline, to which all the rest must be subject, without sacrificing a legitimate autonomy.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

That's true about ID, but that's also true about Darwinian evolutionary theory, or rather, the transformist theory.

The transformist theory (which is the one opposed by intelligent design proponents) is based upon the PHILOSOPHICAL assumption that biological life in this universe actually DOES evolve along Darwinian lines. The true scientific method (the one that Gregor Mendell used to discover what he did about genetic variation in biological life) does not say very good things about the transformist theory. This is because true scientific scrutiny is the scrutiny of EMPIRICAL DATA and what that kind of data shows about reality. There simply is not enough empirical data available in nature to support the theory of Darwinian evolution. But most scientists continue to have faith in this unprovable theory because the only alternative IS the intelligent design hypothesis.

A great book to read on this subject is "Cosmos and Transcendence: Breaking Through the Barrier of Scientistic Belief" by Wolfgang Smith.

[jezic]

the Vatican has said this for some time.

ID is interesting, but it is strange. The truth is that ID only posists that there is something greater, some greater form of life that is behind everything that is happening life form wise because of the complexity or other arguments.

[Desert Walker]

Maybe the problem with the other arguments is that they are too complex.

[morostheos]

To base any belief in the work on God on lack of scientific evidence is not sustainable in the long run. When you have a "God of the gaps" belief, God ends up getting relegated to smaller and smaller spaces as scientific exploration closes the gaps. It seems foolish to me to assume that only when we don't understand how something happens can it be attributed to God.

[Didacus]

I am not certain where to post this, but I believe this thread to be a related topic thus, ehre goes;

I have been debating on another board about faith, existence of God and what not. All that good, and er... less good stuff.

This guy responded to me in this fashion: Crow is myself... and the large bolded letters are my own emphasis.

[quote][quote]crow wrote:

[quote]Isn't looking for proof of God's existence in direct contradiction of the requirement of the centrality of Faith? [/quote]

No it is not a contradiction. Fatih =/= ignorance.

It is more a question of seeking to know more about God rather than proving He is there. [/quote]So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

... Ummmm - am I the only one who has read your fing book? Why doesn't that surprise me? [b]As a Xstian zombie worshipper, you should know that the pursuit of knowledge outside the LORD is anethema to your FAITH. [/b]

What, exactly, do you imagine the sin of Lucifer to be? Porn surfing? There is only one basic sin that all others must spring from... lapse of faith in the supremacy of the LORD in all things. First, and above all else, you must lose the shackles of the ways of man and put your faith and trust in GOD (ask Abraham or Job or Moses or the Disciples). That is your religion, bucko - I didn't write the tripe. Your need to place your deity within the parameters of 'science' is spitting on the basic foundation of the goat-herd religion you spew.

Heathen.

You might be able to tell from my vitriol that I despise hypocrites even more than regular dumbass voodoo cult members. [/quote]



and

[quote][quote]crow wrote:

Anathema is a very big word, I hope you understand it properly before flinging it around like that. [/quote]



Deut. 7:26
Acts 23:12, 14, 21
1 Cor. 12:3
Gal. 1:8, 9

The sacrifice held up to pagan gods is unfit for your God, brother.

[quote]crow wrote:

I posted it before, I'll post it again:

Quote:
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."


There is no contradiction between science and faith, and faith is not a synonym of ignorance. [/quote]



Neat, now explain how your situational and cleverly convenient 'new thought' juxtaposes with the Holy Word:

BIBLE wrote:
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.




You are lost.[/quote]


When scripture quoting starts being used I get a little nervous; not a church scholar here... i can easily defend my position, but I would like to put the scriptures quoted in proper and correct context. Can anyone help me?

Basically, this guy is quoting scriptures and saying that the bible and catholic faith demand that the faithful remain in ignorance and not seek knowledge beyond what is given to them through science or any other means.

A ridiculous position of course, but it is a little hard to find the words at times. Please help... thank you all, and God bless...

Deut. 7:26

Acts 23:12, 14, 21

1 Cor. 12:3

Gal. 1:8, 9

finally, if you wish to see the link:

[url="http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic16867-105.html"]http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic16867-105.html[/url]

Keep in mind, there are a lot of 'nutcases' on that site to put it mildly...

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Hmmm... it doesn't surprise me that many of the peak oilers are not just atheist but are hostile towards religion. I guess it's in line with their general belief that gloom and doom is better than good news and the Gospel. I think most of them actually want the 'oil crash' to happen if they were given a choice between infinite oil or running out of it tomorrow.

[Didacus]

To that I must agree; they are not waiting for a crash, they are hoping for a crash.

But you have to admit you have a lot of intelligent and intereesting people around there, and it makes for a chalenging debate to exchange with them; uncharitable as they might be.

Besides, what little I can do to try and spread the gospel in my little way, I do.

I would need some help with those bible passages though...

anyone?

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Feb 1 2006, 11:54 AM']As a Xstian zombie worshipper
[/quote]

That is [i]awesome[/i]. I've got to figure how to use this in a conversation some time.

[Didacus]

Yes, I admit his vocabulary is both bold and idiotic; I'm certain he can make a good splash on the comedy channel.

[morostheos]

Here are some quotes for him to chew on:

“Happy the man who meditates on wisdom and reasons intelligently, who reflects in his heart on her ways and ponders her secrets. He pursues her like a hunter and lies in wait on her paths. He peers through her windows and listens at her doors. He camps near her house and fastens his tent-peg to her walls; he pitches his tent near her and so finds an excellent resting-place; he places his children under her protection and lodges under her boughs; by her he is sheltered from the heat and he dwells in the shade of her glory” (Sir 14:20-27).

“It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out” (Prov 25:2)

And for you to exlain to him:
[quote]18. We may say, then, that Israel, with her reflection, was able to open to reason the path that leads to the mystery. With the Revelation of God Israel could plumb the depths of all that she sought in vain to reach by way of reason. On the basis of this deeper form of knowledge, the Chosen People understood that, if reason were to be fully true to itself, then it must respect certain basic rules. The first of these is that reason must realize that human knowledge is a journey which allows no rest; the second stems from the awareness that such a path is not for the proud who think that everything is the fruit of personal conquest; a third rule is grounded in the “fear of God” whose transcendent sovereignty and provident love in the governance of the world reason must recognize.

In abandoning these rules, the human being runs the risk of failure and ends up in the condition of “the fool”. For the Bible, in this foolishness there lies a threat to life. The fool thinks that he knows many things, but really he is incapable of fixing his gaze on the things that truly matter. Therefore he can neither order his mind (Prov 1:7) nor assume a correct attitude to himself or to the world around him. And so when he claims that “God does not exist” (cf. Ps 14:1), he shows with absolute clarity just how deficient his knowledge is and just how far he is from the full truth of things, their origin and their destiny.

19. The Book of Wisdom contains several important texts which cast further light on this theme. There the sacred author speaks of God who reveals himself in nature. For the ancients, the study of the natural sciences coincided in large part with philosophical learning. Having affirmed that with their intelligence human beings can “know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars, the natures of animals and the tempers of wild beasts” (Wis 7:17, 19-20)—in a word, that he can philosophize—the sacred text takes a significant step forward. Making his own the thought of Greek philosophy, to which he seems to refer in the context, the author affirms that, in reasoning about nature, the human being can rise to God: “From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wis 13:5). This is to recognize as a first stage of divine Revelation the marvellous “book of nature”, which, when read with the proper tools of human reason, can lead to knowledge of the Creator. If human beings with their intelligence fail to recognize God as Creator of all, it is not because they lack the means to do so, but because their free will and their sinfulness place an impediment in the way. [/quote]Fides et Ratio

Also a piece specifically on his quote from Corinthians:
[quote]23. This is why the Christian's relationship to philosophy requires thorough-going discernment. In the New Testament, especially in the Letters of Saint Paul, one thing emerges with great clarity: the opposition between “the wisdom of this world” and the wisdom of God revealed in Jesus Christ. The depth of revealed wisdom disrupts the cycle of our habitual patterns of thought, which are in no way able to express that wisdom in its fullness.

The beginning of the First Letter to the Corinthians poses the dilemma in a radical way. The crucified Son of God is the historic event upon which every attempt of the mind to construct an adequate explanation of the meaning of existence upon merely human argumentation comes to grief. The true key-point, which challenges every philosophy, is Jesus Christ's death on the Cross. It is here that every attempt to reduce the Father's saving plan to purely human logic is doomed to failure. “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the learned? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Cor 1:20), the Apostle asks emphatically. The wisdom of the wise is no longer enough for what God wants to accomplish; what is required is a decisive step towards welcoming something radically new: “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise...; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not to reduce to nothing things that are” (1 Cor 1:27-28). Human wisdom refuses to see in its own weakness the possibility of its strength; yet Saint Paul is quick to affirm: “When I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10). Man cannot grasp how death could be the source of life and love; yet to reveal the mystery of his saving plan God has chosen precisely that which reason considers “foolishness” and a “scandal”. Adopting the language of the philosophers of his time, Paul comes to the summit of his teaching as he speaks the paradox: “God has chosen in the world... that which is nothing to reduce to nothing things that are” (cf. 1 Cor 1:28). In order to express the gratuitous nature of the love revealed in the Cross of Christ, the Apostle is not afraid to use the most radical language of the philosophers in their thinking about God. Reason cannot eliminate the mystery of love which the Cross represents, while the Cross can give to reason the ultimate answer which it seeks. It is not the wisdom of words, but the Word of Wisdom which Saint Paul offers as the criterion of both truth and salvation.

The wisdom of the Cross, therefore, breaks free of all cultural limitations which seek to contain it and insists upon an openness to the universality of the truth which it bears. What a challenge this is to our reason, and how great the gain for reason if it yields to this wisdom! Of itself, philosophy is able to recognize the human being's ceaselessly self-transcendent orientation towards the truth; and, with the assistance of faith, it is capable of accepting the “foolishness” of the Cross as the authentic critique of those who delude themselves that they possess the truth, when in fact they run it aground on the shoals of a system of their own devising. The preaching of Christ crucified and risen is the reef upon which the link between faith and philosophy can break up, but it is also the reef beyond which the two can set forth upon the boundless ocean of truth. Here we see not only the border between reason and faith, but also the space where the two may meet.[/quote] Fides et Ratio

It's a start at least....

[Didacus]

Hey thanks Fides... I'll be working on a response for him mahybe later today, maybe tomorrow. Will let you all know when I do.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Feb 2 2006, 08:25 AM']Hey thanks Fides... I'll be working on a response for him mahybe later today, maybe tomorrow.  Will let you all know when I do.
[right][snapback]872754[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

lol, I'm not Fides, but I quoted the encyclical "Fides et Ratio" for you.

In Christ,
Claire

[Didacus]

Thanks morostheos...

I thought I had said morostheos?

sorry... now I'm blushing...

[thessalonian]

I read the comments about ID and had some issues with the article. First of all I think the priest who wrote it goes to far in saying that ID has no place in the Church. From a standpoint of meeting people where they are at I think it does. Most people have no clue about Catholic theology and so you can't unload on them all about the Eucharist. You have to start some people with bringing them to a conclusion that there is a God or some higher power.

My second gripe is that I think he missuses JP II's words about Darwinism and Evolution. He quotes JP II as saying that "evolution can no longer be considered a hypothosis". Yet he ignores the fact that JP II still calls it a theory several times in his comments to the scientific institute he made the comments to. I can look it up online if anyone is interested. It is a theory and one that I do not neccessarily find in conflict with ID, though I do not hold to Evolution except perhaps on a micro or partial level. It may be one of the mechanisms God has used to bring about life as we know it today. But it is not the factor from which life began. Science has not come close to a logical and resonable explanation of this. Lighting hitting primordial soup. Give me a break.

Edited February 2, 2006 by thessalonian

[morostheos]

Just to clarify, here's the scientific definition of the word 'theory"
[quote]A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.[/quote]

A theory is certainly more than a hypothesis.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 2 2006, 08:00 AM']Just to clarify, here's the scientific definition of the word 'theory"
A theory is certainly more than a hypothesis.
[right][snapback]872862[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes, thanks. But it is not a certainty. It seemed that the Jesuit who made the statements attributed to the Vatican was posing it as if JP II was saying evolution is fact. A theory is not a fact.

[Didacus]

The distintciton is an important one.

1 +1 = 2 is not a theory, it can be considered proven fact.

Tehory is never solid 100%. Tehory of evolution could be disregaurded entirely in 100 years - who knows.

Relativity, by the way, remain a theory as well.


There are several phenomenas in nature that are not explained with the theory of evolution.

[Didacus]

OK

I posted the reply to gary. Two actually. Thank Fides.. er... I mean Rose. i cinluded every one of your quotes. A little something to make his head spin. Turns out most of what he quote is a load of bull anyways.

Soon, I will post to him something in the likes of "People who are atheists are people who 'claim' to have rad the bible." and see what his response will be.

LOL all in good fun.

Thanks again!