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.
1. Hemos, I find your sarcasm disappointing. There are quite a few factions when it comes to different religions, and you've just compared two related, yet completely different religions to one another. i.e. It's about the same as if you mentioned that Chrisitians are bemused by Mormons. The two religions don't think of one another as "correct" even though one builds on the other. The only difference is that the Jewish and Christian faiths tend to be much more amicable toward one another.
2. The Vatican embraced the evolutionary theory several years ago under Pope John Paul III. Opponents like to point out that the Vatican also accepted a geocentric view of the Universe. As a result, only devote Catholics take the Vatican seriously on matters of science.
Amusingly, quite a bit of science in history was done by priests and other church members. However, the Vatican regularly declared heresy against anyone who challenged the accepted "facts" of the Universe. Galileo is often cited as an example, but that was partly his own fault. He used satire to insult the pope (a good friend of his) and the pope was forced to respond. Galileo should have counted himself lucky to only get house arrest.
3. If you're going to mention Yahweh (aka YHWH, aka Jehovah, aka God of Israel) in proper Jewish context, you need to mark out some of the letters as a sign of respect. e.g. "Y-WH" or "G-d"
4. Save your flames. This is intended as an informational post only, and I probably won't respond to any replies. Don't like it? Too bad. Find some objectivity.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Evolution isn't a theory about the start of life. Evolution is an attempt to explain variability (and patterns of variability) among and within different species, and how that variability is systematically affected by certain factors.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, commence flame war.
It may be a troll, but I will bite. Rarely has a short comment had so many errors in it. And I don't mean spelling errors. "Fundamentalism" in the way it's understood by many modern Western Christians is a relatively new phenomenon, and certainly it has very specific overtones that relate to 19th/20th century American Christianity. As for "stopped listening to Jews" perhaps the poster should acquaint himself with the book of Acts in which some of the discussions and controversies between Jews and Christians are described. Some of this was by way of preaching and dialog and, yes, some was by less pleasant methods. Judaism as we know it today is different from the Jewish faith practiced in the early 1st century if only because of the destruction of the temple in AD70. AD33 is an approximation since no one is entirely sure of the crucifiction/resurrection dates. And Hemos, leave out the editorialising. It's not necessary.
And of course the Rabinical movement didn't emerge untill after the destruction of the temple in 79 AD. Before that Judaism had a priesthood (plus the Pharisees, precursors of the Rabbis). But I'll stop now before your eyes glaze over.
How is ID an alternative to the abiogenesis question? Other than "somehow something produced life" what does it bring to the table? Can it tell us about potential chemical pathways? Can it be falsified?
Abiogenesis researchers do not pretend that they can answer the question of how life on this planet developed from prebiotic organic chemicals, because even when they find a potential pathway, that might not be THE pathway. For all we know, there may be dozens of different means by which organic molecules began to function as self-replicating systems. But the key here is that each and every abiogenesis theory is falsifiable.
ID, as formulated by the likes of Behe and Dembski, can tell us nothing. It is an empty argument from incredulity.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You are in agreement with the Vatican and many, perhaps most, scientists, however you have absolutely no clue as to what Intelligent Design is.
ID doesn't describe the origins of life, or anything else for that matter. It simply states that certain biological features are irreducibly complex. (In each of those cases, evolution has proven that they are wrong.)
I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that evolution is the process by which God decided to create current life. ID states that this is impossible, that life doesn't change dramatically and that some "intelligent being" must have created complex life to begin with. It leave no room at all for evolution.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
If I recall corectly, the Pentateuch was writen by Moses as dictated to him by God. This includes Genesis.
That depends on who you ask. Researchers believe the pentateuch was more likely written by at least 4 scholars/rabbis during the exile in Babylon.
See:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html
or this book.
evolution comes alogn and says that matter is eternal: we've been in an unending cycle of compression and expansion of matter for eternity
Er, no. The theory of evolution (natural selection) doesn't address the origins of the Universe, of matter and energy, etc., nor should it. It only describes a general mechanism by which more complex, better-suited organisms can form from lesser ones.
Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians generally support the Mosaic authorship, with datings in the 13th-15th century BCE.
Most other scholars (90% according to wikipedia), including secular, Jewish and Christian scholars, would date the final redaction to 6-7th century BCE (see for example the documentary hypothesis, which although it is not the latest theory forms a background and frequently a basis for newer theories). The final form was based on earlier documents and oral traditions, with the earliest written parts going back to about the 9th or 10th century BCE. More info here: Dating the bible.
You are aware, I trust, that evolutionary theory has changed significantly in the last century and a half. Darwin's work was a good base, but it wasn't until the Modern Synthesis that we had a theory that contained the actual means of imperfect replication. It may surprise you, but Darwin isn't the Jesus Christ of the scientific community, and his theory has been tested and refined for a goodly long time, unlike old Paley's watchmaker argument, which simply gets more vague and less capable of even explaining any kind of theistic claim. ID is empty rhetoric, evolutionary theory is the the grand unifying theory of biology.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Multiple Designers: Why are there so many different designs for the eye and what does that say about the designer(s)? Why does the human eye lack important innovations such as the reflective layer in the cat's eye that improves night vision or the more logical retina-over-blood network of the octopus eye or the four-color vision of the jumping spider eye (or the 6-color vision of the mantis shrimp) or the polarization sensitivity used by bees and ants for navigation? One strong hypothesis is that multiple designers participated -- different designers, working independently, created these different designs. Perhaps the joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee is really true.
Bible literalists should have no trouble believing this. The Bible, and the commandments do not say that there are no other gods. It says that God is the creator of man, and the you shouldn't worship any other gods. It is only through interpretation that this is taken to mean that God is the only god; but literalists don't interpret. Genesis doesn't say anywhere that no other creators ever came along and added to God's creation. There was no octopus, spider, bee, or ant on Noah's ark... Again, this is only implied. But the bible is meant to be taken purely at face value, right?
Of course it's silly to talk like that, because literalists are only literalists about the parts they like.
(A few scholars however, e.g. Van Seters, argue that the J source, instead of being the earliest in 9th-10th century BCE, is actually post-exilic).
Intelligent Design is the idea that God manipulated and brought upon evolution.
See, this is one of the major problems with Intelligent Design. Nobody seems to know just what the fuck it actually is.
For the record, the idea of intelligent design is that the design of biology is too complex to have evolved into that state. That some higher power designed it instead of evolution.
But ID doesn't say that this higher power guided evolution! No, Intelligent Design rejects evolution entirely, albeit not in so many words. Because if you have evolution but then take away natural selection (in favor of "intelligent") and random mutation (in favor of "design"), then you no longer really have evolution, do you?
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The fundamentalist belief (to which I hold) is not compatible with ID. These are two entirely separate paradigms.
Boy the ID folks would really, really, really like the nation to believe that, but sorry, we can see a pig, smell a pig, and know a pig even if the farmer calls it a chicken.
For reference, ID embraces pretty much the same things as the so-called independent thinking scientists, except for having a cause.
No, what ID says is that species we see today were designed into their current shape by an intelligent force. This is functionally the same message as Genesis, and about as far from modern theories of genetics and natural selection as you can get. The only thing ID has in common with real biological science is one slice of the data set--current life. ID proponents don't even recognize the validity of the fossil record.
Fundamentalists (again, that's me) hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
That is truly amazing, I had no idea so many Americans had developed the skill to read and understand ancient Hebrew. Or didn't you know that when you read an English Bible you're holding to a literal interpretation of some other human's translation and interpretation of the Bible? Didn't you know that the Bible was culled, edited, and assembled from source texts by humans?
If you want to lambaste one of the causes, please choose the appropriate one. Or at least make a distinction. Thanks.
Nope, not going to take that bait. It doesn't take a whole lot of critical thinking to see that that is exactly what the fondest dreams of the ID and fundamentalist communities are.
ID is being pushed now simply because the fundamentalist belief in the literal Bible has so thoroughly been rejected by American society. It's never taken hold and it never will--science is too important to America's success and power.
Even those who claim to hew the closest to the belief undercut themselves on a daily basis...how many fundamentalists in this country have ever taken an antibiotic? Received a flu shot? Received treatment for cancer? Answered a doctor's questions about their family medical history?
True fundamentalism demands avoidance of modern medicine and treatments; for did not the Lord create us in his image, and will he not provide for us when we are in need?
ID is nothing more that the fundamentalist belief in a literal act of designed creation by God, prettied up in the wrapper of scientific lingo.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Because rabbi means teacher. Jesus was a teacher. He wasn't a rabbi in the modern sense of the word (maybe as someone able to interpret Jewish law which it is still sometimes used to denote, but definitely not in the sense of the ordained position it is now).
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
Right-wing Catholics may listen, though, and there many of them who side with the ID folks. A famous example of a pro-ID Catholic is Rick (I wish my name didn't have another meaning) Santorum, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania who has added pro-ID wording to legislation.
Of course, there is no proof that this will do any good. In particular, the extreme right-wing Catholics of the Mel Gibson variety, like many fundamentalist protestants, have already given up on the pope.
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
ID isn't a theory. Its not even a hypothesis. You might call that 'charged language', I'd call it 'stating an objective fact'.
If you're talking about irreducible complexity, then this has been around for a very long time - Paley was going on about the presence of a watch on a heath implying the existence of a watchmaker back in 1800 - so the basic concept predates Darwin (Charles at least) by several decades. The problem the basic conjecture has is that to date every example of something irreducibly complex that has been advanced as evidence for a designer has turned out, upon examination, to not be irreducibly complex after all.
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
Which, if true, must have been very depressing to Moses, since his death is recorded in the second of the the five books.
I guess it's easy to throw around untrue statements and get modded up.
The death of Moses is in Deuteronomy 32:48-52; 34:1-12. This is the end of the FIFTH book of the Bible.
boxlight
In a day and age with Google, you'd think one would research just ever so slightly before making false claims.
Answers in Genesis
"It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of p, and in particular it does not say that p = 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination."
Unfortunately, sufficient fossil records do not exist to support major speciation.
Yes, they do.
FreeSpeech.org
1. The Big Bang cannot be true as it contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics.
2. Evolution cannot be true as it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
1. Irrelevant, because assuming the Big Bang happened, Laws of Thermodynamics would only apply "after" it. Inflation stretches (heh) things a bit, but doesn't break them because it's based on the assumption of "latent energy" already present in the universe being converted into other forms.
2. Incorrect -- yes, evolution implies a localized increase in order, but that isn't prohibited by the Second Law, so long as things get more disordered in general. To illustrate the same point, grass growing doesn't violate the Second Law, because that increase is fueled by incoming energy from the Sun, and the Sun is still causing a net increase in entropy (and would be even if it were surrounded by a Dyson sphere covered in grass, due to the impossible of reaching 100% efficiency in energy conversion.)
As a general rule, the Catholic churches still spend way too much money on ornaments and decorations and material objects in the church. This money could be much better used for helping the poor and taking the faith to the unbelievers.
Umm... Jesus disagrees with you a tad... John 12:4-8 states:
Judas the Iscariot, one of his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, "Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days' wages 3 and given to the poor?" He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions. So Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."
We believe that Christ's true physical presence exists in the Eucharist. Why should we treat him any differently than Mary of Bethany? Giving money, service, and faith to the poor is very good, but so is treating Christ with the majesty He deserves. A priest friend of mine often says that the holy sacrifice of the mass has an audience of one: God. Though we can never be truly perfect, or worship God to the degree he deserves, we should make a best effort.
Though you're welcome to a different interpretation in application of your own faith, I hold that the Catholic church behaves rather biblically in this respect.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
So close....
9 585133/103-1081140-1817412?v=glance
;-)) that my karma does run over your dogma...
The 4 writers are not just because of the 4 names of God, but also the massive discrepancies in style and content of various parts of the bible. How else do you square the Babylonian creation myths of Genesis with the temple accounts of Leviticus and then the need to recount everything all over again in Deuteronomy. Highly recommend Richard Elliot Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" to anyone really interested in this. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/013
Spoiler: not written by Rabbi's but by High Priest in Josiah's reign to cement the legitimacy of the new monarchy with the old priestly sects and monarchy bloodline (Rabbi's being a relatively late addition to Judaism, the priestly Cohen sect was more important for spiritual leadership back then)
The Dead Sea scrolls don't play such an important part here, although they are very interesting especially to understand the socio-political developments of Roman period Judea. And in fact there's another myth that there were not different versions of the Pentateuch. Apparently the Karaite bible has at least 13 differences and you can assume they are just as accurate with protecting their textual tradition (and if you're into lamb barbecue's Mt. Gerizim outside Nablus is the place to be around Passover time).
Anyway, your evidence is very patchy. If you're looking for Orthodox Rabbi's to claim creation is allegorical you can start hunting around Maimonides (Rambam), IIRC you'll find plenty there.
And yes, it's trite, but I believe (with a complete belief
29 mpg. YMMV.
Copernicus realized that by moving the Sun to the centre of spheres instead of the Earth he needed less amount epicycles.
:-(
Copernicus did not invented the spheres neither the epicycles. They were described by a scholar greek, Ptolemaios referring to secret Egyptian scripts (of course he could just made up them) as a flat Earth surrounded by the spheres and epicycles. Another greek thinker found out that the Earth is a globe and the Sun at incredibly far away about at the same time but it was so surrealistic that it was dropped.
Kepler enchanced the heliocentric view by describing the rules for the ellyptical planetary orbits.
The Bible has been treated (almost) as any other script for about 200 years. Even the Vatican's text analysis concluded that every gospel has parts with unique structures that definitely point to separate authors.
It's a pity that you've got 5 points as interesting
Instead of 5 points for a troll that you are.
The Bible, and the commandments do not say that there are no other gods
"I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6)
"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8)
"There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:21-22)
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9)
"There is none other God but one" (I Corinthians 8:4)
"One God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:6)
"For there is one God" (I Timothy 2:5)
"Since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith." (Romans 3:30)
And other people just like to make things up.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
[Evolution] provides a plausible explanation for the origin of species, but has no predictive power at all.
How come even a cursory glance at the recent articles in the open access PLoS journals reveal lots of people making predictions from evolutionary information?
Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics
Whole-Genome Analysis of Human Influenza A Virus Reveals Multiple Persistent Lineages and Reassortment among Recent H3N2 Viruses
Comparative Genomics and Disorder Prediction Identify Biologically Relevant SH3 Protein Interactions
Fools! Don't they know that evolution has no predictive power at all?
It provides a plausible explanation for the origin of species, but has no predictive power at all.
Oh that's just nonsense.
Before the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria their existence was predicted by evolution. Researchers knew if a single bacteria, through random mutation, developed a resistance to an antibiotic, it would have an obvious survival advantage and spread more rapidly. In several countries, if you contract a disease from a local prostitute, it's almost gauranteed to be a super-resistant strain because some genius government there thought they would be clever and give these women antibiotics as a prophylactic measure. Worked for a little while, then that damned evolution thing kicked in.
That's why HIV carriers are on a drug cocktail. It's far less likely the virus is going to develop an immunity to all the different drugs at once. If you were to give the drugs one at a time, however, evolution predicts the rise of an HIV virus that could resist them all.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Because she did it to Jesus himself in person during the short time He was with us on this earth. I definitely do not see this verse as being a blank check for the church to spend money for all eternity on arguably useless decoration instead of the poor and needy.
Well, we believe that the Eucharist IS Christ's physical presence here on earth. No different. His *appearance* is that of bread and wine, but we believe the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.
What in the New Testament gives you any indication that God is particularly interested in material goods or that anything that we are capable of producing with our hands could actually increase God's glory!?
Um... we aren't increasing God's glory, we're giving witness to it. Our beautiful churches, art, and artefacts -- anything that contains beauty -- can be an icon to the greater glory of God. Sorry... I guess I wasn't particularly clear before.
A "trend" 1800 years ago doesn't make it Biblical or correct. As already mentioned, the Catholic Church has done a LOT of things that were not Biblical or correct.
I don't remember in which epistle, but Paul does make reference to respecting sacred Tradition as well as sacred scripture. (I can't quote chapter or verse as most protestants, but I do know the New Testament fairly well. Old Testament is a bit harder to remember everything...)
"To give" to the material church or "to give" our material possessions to the poor and give our spirital wealth to God? I'd say the latter. As Jesus said, if we would be perfect, go, sell our things, and give to the poor, and follow Him. He didn't say "Give me your possessions and follow me."
Yet God gave some pretty specific instructions to build a lavish temple to Him to the Hebrews. Christ never deprecated this! Why can we not do both -- give to the poor and build beautiful altars for His most holy sacrifice? What about what is said in Revelations about the adornments of the altar? The Tridentine mass (the traditional latin mass that was mostly unchanged from the 5th century until 1970) has its theology largely based its account of the lamb's sacrifice.
Also, what about what he told the apostles just before he ascended into heaven (I think the account was in Acts)? He said that though he told them originally to go from place to place without money, arms, etc. that the time was changing, and they'd have to do otherwise. He clearly made different pastoral decisions pre and post resurrection.
Finally, what about the writings of the patriarchs who immediately succeeded the apostles? The epistles of Clement, Linus, Ignatius of Antioch, and other early church fathers detail the roles of bishops and deacons, the celebration of the mass, etc. We have the Didache, which historians believed functioned as a proto-catechism and book of rites and prayers used by the early church -- dated somewhere around 80-100AD. In fact, the Didache contains the first known transcription of the modern form of the Lord's Prayer (which is a combination of the Matthean and Lucan account). This supports our Traditions as well.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
That's why HIV carriers are on a drug cocktail. It's far less likely the virus is going to develop an immunity to all the different drugs at once. If you were to give the drugs one at a time, however, evolution predicts the rise of an HIV virus that could resist them all.
Your theory is perfectly valid with bacteria (natural selection prefers resistant bacteria) but I don't think it applies to HIV.
IANAMD but as I recall the HIV cocktail reinforces your immune system so that your body be more successful at fighting off HIV. The drugs don't do anything (directly) to the HIV virus. We have yet to come up with a drug that will directly attack any virus -- let alone HIV.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Actually, we have several drugs that can attack viruses; Tamiflu, the anti-flu medication, is one current example. We just don't have any that are as broadly effective as antibiotics are against bacteria.
That is an incredible statement, clearly from a non-scientist (as per your use of quotes in "randomly collide" and "create" which are serious concepts). It sounds to me like you've never taken a real science class at all. I, on the other hand, actually AM an organic chemist (3rd year grad student, UC Berkeley) and I cannot recall meeting a single chemist, or for that matter biologist, biochemist, or any other serious scientist who does not believe in human evolution.
Molecular evolution is something we think about a lot. The idea is even used to discover drugs. If you are able to wrap your mind around the idea that you can "naturally select" certain molecules, it takes minimal imagination to further the selection process to larger and larger biomolecules. Biomolecules = life. Selection = evolution.
Three cheers for the Vatican.
Actually, it says that bat is a "oph", or flying creature.
Why on earth did you think to apply the Linnean classification to the Scriptures? This is the equivalent of a creationist saying "yeah, well, evolution is a theory, not a fact" and sitting back proudly. If you want to discuss the inerrancy of Scripture, please email me. I'm sure the discussion can move past Birds & Bats. ;-)
Sola Deo Gloria!