Slashdot Mirror
Vatican Rejects Intelligent Design?
typobox43 writes "A Vatican representative has expressed a defense of the theory of evolution, stating that it is "perfectly compatible" with the Genesis story of creation. "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator"." Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down. The Orthodox rabbis I've spoken find it amazingly amusing that people take the creation story as literal truth, rather then a story about YHWH's power.
I'm not a devout religious person, but I believe in a God and that he(yes, he), had a hand in creating the universe and guiding progress along. I don't have anything against evolution nor intelligent design and I don't see why other people like that. I don't see why the two theories can't be merged. *shrug*
When you're more religiously conservative than the Vatican, that should be a big freakin clue sign that your theory sucks. I mean, they don't believe in contraception, but they think evolution is plausible, and doesn't contradict orthodox theology.
To me, that should be end of story.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
In other news, George W. Bush rejects the Vatican and has called Evolution a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Tut. Evolution is a scientific theory. Religion _isn't_ a theory - it is utter fantasy like Father Christmas or Lord of the rings.
If religion did have any basis on fact, then we would have only one religion - except we don't - all we have is religion[s] trying to kill the other religion[s] off - WAR.
The sooner religion is dropped from mainstream and moved to a pigeon hole like star trek fans (et al), the World would be a better place.
I don't see why the two theories can't be merged. *shrug*
Excuse me, did you just suggest a reimplementation of the "Age of Enlightenment". (Which, despite its name and attempts to combine many religions, wasn't very enlightening.)
Science, Religion, etc. should all take a back seat to the truth. It's very easy to get caught up in "I believe it's this way, so therefore it is," but that doesn't get us any closer to reality.
The reality is this: Neither Science or Religion has all the answers to the universe we live in right now. Science should be perpetually trying to find them while Religion is more about answers beyond this world. Science started as an outcropping of Religion to handle the matters of this world we live in. Somehow to two became mortal enemies.
"Evolution" can be broken down into a long string of theories, 90% of which have been discarded along the way. The facts of nature's operation (e.g. the ability to adapt between generations, aka "micro" evolution) have been well established. But extending them to the matter of long term change still has many issues, the greatest of which is the lack of a provable theory for abiogenesis. Thus "Evolutionary Theory" is still "work in progress", and will probably remain so until we can reproduce some of the more difficult concepts of the theory.
This has led many to believe that the theory ought to be treated with far more care, especially since schools have been known to teach such misinformation as Dr. Jonathan Wells' theory of evolution in the womb.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have Religions trying to figure out how things started from a very simple description. Well, we can take our best shot at it, but any theories there also have to be treated as "Work in Progrss". At least to the degree that we're looking for a more precise answer that really isn't covered by works such as the Bible. (Creation spans a single chapter of Genesis. That isn't a lot to go on.)
Thus "combining" them is not the answer. The answer is to seek the answer, even at the expense of all prejudices. ID, Evolution, or whatever else is the fad of the moment can get in the friggin' back seat. Sadly, the ID argument won't be over until Evolution is handled better in schools, and Evolution won't be handled better in schools until certain people get off their duffs and stop insisting on pushing it to "save children from religion."
Now excuse me, I'm about to be modded down for taking a truthful and thoughtful position.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Somehow, I don't think that its a demonstraton of the power of any Young Homosexual Women's Helpline (1-888-THE-GLNH), though working in a reference to lesbians in ANY article is guaranteed to get the "guys-living-in-mom'sbasement" crowd all hot and bothereddddddd
Because the subject of discussion is Chrstianity related. I personally think all religion is retarded.
This article has nothing to do with intelligent design. It's about a completely different theory - the literal genesis creation. The article actually argued in favor of intelligent design - which is to say that evolution happened, and because evolution is so awesome and finely-tuned, it was obviously a reflection that there is a higher power.
To those of you who used this as a chance to blast intelligent design for being ignorant, you are actually the ignorant one because you obviously don't even know what intelligent design is actually about. Again, this article was about the literal genesis creation.
Educate yourselves, people.
Not to be a grammar Nazi, but this is worth pointing out.
catholic == Christian
Catholic == The Roman Catholic Church
The Catholic (big C) population of the United States breaks down to roughly 80% mainstream and 20% extremists. The 20% are the ones that hold with Vatican doctrine on birth control, spout the creationist doctrine, and generally give other Catholics a bad name.
Random bit of trivia. John Kerry (Catholic - MA) was informed that he would no longer be allowed to take communion at certain Catholic churches because of his refusal to come down legislatively against Roe v. Wade. Strangely, no one seems to deny pro-death penalty Republicans the sacrament of communion.
The antidote is relevant because Americans are increasingly using Religion to justify their political and ideological beliefs instead of building those believes around the fundamental morality dictated by their religion. Politics has, for many, even the highly religious, become a second religion in and of itself.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
(Disclaimer - I don't know ID, but I'm open to it because I'm one of those evangelical fundie types who reads Genesis literally.)
I think the evolution/ID debate is controversial because:
My solution to all of this - get the government out of the buisiness of providing classroom teaching. Yes education is vitally important and must be available to all equally and fairly. But the classrooom is and always will be a proving ground for many forms of ideology both good and bad. Send your kids to an evolution only school, I'll send mine to one that presents Genesis as history and evolution as a competing secular theory, and someone else will snd their kids to a school that puts all origins teaching on the same footing. After all, given enough time, won't the weakest teaching strategies will be selected out?
Genesis and evolution: Believe one or the other is true, but not both. To believe that man is made in God's image is not compatible with evolution. Having hundreds of millions of years of death and suffering (i.e., natural selection) BEFORE original sin is not compatible with Genesis. Genesis 3:17-18 and Romans 8:19-22. The first day (yom), the second day, evening and morning, and so on, are very literal wordings. Claiming to be written by God's own finger, Exodus 20:11 affirms the literal interpretation. In Mark 10:6, Jesus affirms creation. If you want to allegorize the literal six-day creation presented in Genesis, then you're also going to have to allegorize sin and the fall, and therefore judgment, redemption, the cross, and most things about Jesus. If you're going to admit to all of that, then there's no point in holding on to any form of Christianity any longer. Take a position, but don't try to hold two contradictory positions simultaneously. The Bible is all divinely inspired or none of it is. Believe God or believe man. Jesus said it best: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
ID and fundamentalist Christian arse-wipe are not new. They are old, old ideas which the ignorant and stupid have pushed for thousands of years. The rejection of them came at the end of a long and often bloody examination of their ideas and the evidence. ID has been waved about again recently simply to try and pretend that religion has not lost every argument and is not in fact a hollow vessel devoid of ideas an value. But it is. And that's a considered opinion, not dogma. Show me some evidence to the contrary and I'll consider it. Repeat the same old claptrap again and I'm happy to dismiss it out of hand. It is not my responsibility to keep wasting time on someone else's drivel which has already been delt with in great detail.
Scientists should not be afraid of testing their theories.
Here's the ID theory: god exists. How do I test it? I can't. Intelligent Design (AKA god-lite) is specifically intended to be untestable. Since it can't be tested, just as the existence of Peter Pan can not be tested, it can not be disproved, just as I can not prove that Peter Pan does not exist. This does not change the fact that anyone believing either that Peter Pan really exists or that ID explains anything is either a child or an idiot.
Life on Earth is abundant with examples that show that if it was designed it was not "intelligent", nor for that matter by anything which was beneficent. Octopus eyes, the black death, whales' legs, the human back, the human birth process, the appendix, the dodo, mass extinctions, etc etc. None of this is the work of any rational creator.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This is all about Penis Envy - my penis is bigger than your penis - type arguement. My god is bigger than your god - so you must listen to what my god says that you MUST do - and of course god just talks to me. Now just don't listen to me - but give me your money - so that I can live the life of the rich and famous (including the hookers). And by the way here's a list of people to kill in my gods name.
The Orthodox rabbis I've spoken find it amazingly amusing that people take the creation story as literal truth, rather then a story about YHWH's power.
If you look to the clergy to settle the matter you are no more scientist than Reverand Jimmy in his Waco Texas megabox church. He is just as convinced that the bible is infallable. He makes blind assertions too.
Why do people come so willingly to evolution's defense? The lack of a rigorous formulation makes it vulnerable. It provides a plausible explanation for the origin of species, but has no predictive power at all. Even the theory of econometrics is more developed in this sense. If I were a biologist or an geneticist I would be embarrassed at the state of the field.
an ill wind that blows no good
Which is why many people so vigorously defend evolution. Not because of the weight of the evidence, rather because they cannot accept the consequences of the Bible being true. Believing in evolution soothes the conscience.