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.

Comments

my tagline

[MrByte420]

ssia

Apple ][ was *way* better than the C-64...

[Tim Fraser]

...and everybody knows emacs is better than vi!

- Tim

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down?

[antifoidulus]

laskjdfl'iasiejfrloiWAIJERFL'AEWJHIEFRLOIeijrwflo' ihaergo'sjgvlajkdnsfo;aiewhjrfo'iheargto'iaejhrgto llienargoiaqew90tu8jaet['0o89hW2JT['0ONGT[0aqgnf[0 aq83nv[0o8aqhgr[ohgerf[oiQ3HJBRO[IWAENR [O8NV0[AQH9G0[AQ98NT0EOGHAO;INGL;ADKDNVAL;DIHFIGLO GROPAREUG[OIJERGFO9[8YERTT[908ET[098URET0[9AUEGT[9 087UAERGFOVINJA0FR9U7AE0O[UFAO'SIDJFA0O[8UF0[9ZUS8 FDPA9E8RG0[98AUER0[9898U35408997540WQ387450W93Q847 5O[QP[EIJRTO[A[INSO[AISGFL;IAEJHRG;LAKDFG;LKJNAJKE GF;OVIJNAEO;VNADLKNAD;LKFNJADS;LFGKJADS;LFKJAS;LDF KJAEO;;OAEI;RHG;LNERG;;LEAKRNT;LAKDKRJ;;LDKAFG;LKA SKDJF;ALSKDJFAY RTOAIUEWRO;QIEHRFNVDO[D'8BEADX'OVINQREADBO'HJNN X,.CMNVB;KLDZNGVL/JZDDSLGNZ;'SDF'AZSDJF]AW\EFaw\ef a\ewRFJAE-WER=FAQW3R3WQ4-[Q3W=QEW=RAEFU0[ER9U+_+_( *&^%%^YGGGGHG^TY&*UIJHKGYUT&*(UIJHUYGU*&YUIHGFTYR^ &Y*UIHGYFTYR&Y*UIHGT^&*IUJHGYUT&*UIOJHGTY&*UIJHGYT U&*UIOY&*UIOUJHUYTU*OIJDFHAE90[9PJHFIEPA980OR7UOJF GHNAEIDPF980[G9IPJLKKHJIYDUFSOPIOjkas,df;l.jkasdfk l;iajksdfnkl;qeiuwjrho9p3w83invdp9aowuidfnpa9eiofn u 89ae0e8nfaqpehow8;airwgfuyakl;guhasd;ofiuyaesp09w4 8ruyqUFYOA;DUYFAPOKSDUGYFOAYHSDFLK;UYAIEWR;IOUQTR; OQEIUHGO[AIDSNDFOIEUAFN9onf9q3fnaodsijfloiuhlotlqi jrtop[8eawrtuy 9--aqer7r8uo[8aesdufo[8ae89urw098qeg9-8adhvpoaeser ihrufoi;quo;q3uin5rq3o;iu4h5r9p[qp38709a8eruf098ae f709a8sdfuo[aseifuo[iq3jn45;onu34poqe4ijqo'34iht5l oihj5oqij435o;ij34q5lo;in43hn
Our forefathers were purposely vague when they wrote the Constitution believing that outside of certain inalienable rights, our laws and interpretations should fit the world in which we live. Laws have to be changed in order to adjust to both changes in society at large and based on an individual's circumstances. One reason laws should be more flexible is that there is no way legislators can predict how technology will change and shape the future of the land in which they govern. Furthermore, as times change, society changes as well, but if the law stays static, now acceptable behavior could be conceived as criminal. Laws also have to be open to interpretation as it is very difficult to stipulate exactly what the lawmakers language really means when a case is being tried. Also, especially in a land such as the United States where individuality is essential to the national character, society has to take into account individual circumstances when metting out punishment.

In today's society technology is changing at a breakneck pace and even with flexible laws legislators just cannot keep up with the latest breakthroughs. If the laws are not allowed to be changed, actions that can be incredibly disruptive to society could not be controlled because there are no stipulations that would make said actions illegal. For example, recently in Britain charges were dropped against a teenager who decided to deluge his former employers email systems with about 5 million emails within the span of a few minutes. In technical terms this is called a "Denial of Service" attack and can be very devastating. However, Britain's network security laws were over 15 years old and thus did not take into account an individual having vast amounts of network resources at their disposal so they did not make "Denial of Service" attacks illegal. Even though the individual wreaked havoc on his former employer's systems the charges had to be dropped because it was legal at the time of the attack. Clearly if as we are becoming more and more dependant on technology we need the laws to act as an effective deterrent against cybercrime.

In addition to technological changes, society also changes its moral and ethical values and the laws need to be able to change to reflect that.

Mod'ed down already?

[khasim]

It's good to see the fundamentalists who want to push their religion in the classroom have found /. and learned how to work the moderator system.

Meanwhile, back in Hell.

[Chas]

Hey Chuck! You just got a reprieve!

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down?

[CRCulver]

That's metaphorical. It was metaphorical the first time it was done, so there's nothing "cannibalistic" about the re-enactment of communion. And to be honest, that's the first instance I've heard that viewpoint come up since a some ignorant Romans took the words literally before the widespread adoption of Christianity.

Sorry, but all of the Church Fathers, not only in Rome but also everywhere else in the Christian world of the time, believed that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ the Son of God, not a mere metaphor. This is obvious from the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church (which was one whole half of Christendom at the time of the split) maintains the same doctrine as the Roman Catholic Church, and so it is not a Roman innovation. What is an innovation is the Protestant notion that it's just a symbol, because this has no grounds in the writings of the Fathers.

Re:time to stone Hemos I'm afraid

[Troed]

Oh I knew :) I'm one of those white people living in a civilized western country who's actually _read_ the Quran to better understand the conflicts people sometimes attribute to Islam (which is largely false).

However, claiming (as you do) that there are people (and I hope you mean reputable sources) who do not believe Jahwe, God and Allah to be the same religious entity brings a burden of proof upon you.

The current fascist war regime in the US becomes so much more fun when you know that Bush is saying "Allah bless America" every now and then.

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down?

[CRCulver]

The Coptic Church has the same doctrine on the Eucharist as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Anabaptists didn't come about until the 16th century in Germany. The Amish and the Mennonites are their biggest descendents. There were no "pre-400 AD Protestants". There were some heretical groups, such as the Gnostics and the Montanists, but they can't be called "Protestants" because that word refers to those who followed Luther's break with the Roman Catholic Church. Do you have any training in the history of religion, or are you just trying to get attention by injecting mentions of the Copts in places where they aren't especially pertinent?

Re:Attack the messenger (please)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ah yes, the Intelligent Designer who didn't realize that Adam would need a mate."

And where in Genesis does it state or support that? God creates male and female at nearly the same time, if not the exact same time.

If you read Chapter 1 literally, Man is created in 1:27, the same time female is. btw, be fruitful and multiply is mentioned in 1:28. As a /. reader, I know you likely get any and may be confused, but hopefully you know where babies come from. Unless you are next going to argue Man/humans were to breed asexually at first, God created both at or nearly at the same time.

Now, if you maybe consider Chapter 1 a general Creation of the earth, heavens, seas, and all life, and Chapter 2 specifically pertaining to the existence of Man per Adam, then, gosh, God created Adam's mate rather quickly, and referring back to Chapter 1 to which Chapter 2 is an expansion of detail, all still in the same day. Adam is created 2:7. Problem defined 2:20 (note I did not say identified). Eve created 2:22. (Some consider Chapter 2 in reference to the line of Adam, not all or the first Man/humans.)

I base this on the King James version of the Bible, which is probably okay, but from a scholarly and historical point of view as it pertains to Christianity or of the 3 "God" based religous (Jewish, Christians, Muslims) is probably not the most accurate, best translation, etc. etc. If I remember correctly, Genesis usually considered a mixture of stories as well to combine the various religions together, which led to seeming contradictions and disparities.

Nevertheless, claiming God didn't know Adam needed a mate is like claiming God didn't know the earth needed seas, because God didn't create them on the first day, that God was flawed because he did not create all in 1 day, needing 7, et al. It's a ridiculous attack, even by the literally meaning by which you try to attack Genesis/reglion/make an argument, and rather indicates you haven't read much of the Bible, much less the first 2 chapters of it.

btw, I'm not religious or newly found religious type or born-again (I considered myself an atheist, although I think I'm actually an agnostic, though I don't really care either way--not being religious is not a big deal to me or to the people in my life). First time I read Genesis was in college. I find the whole ID thing laughable, seconded by the stupidity of certain science evangelists whose insistence that everything in our public education system must be made secular

btw2, this discrepancy in Creation is where some believe it starts to support at least 1 female was created before Eve. However, usually the support of this comes in much later books and is made much clearer/literal. In any case, some people think 3-4 females were originally created in total, one of which was destroyed. The other 2 of the 3, 1 is Eve. The remainder is what most people that take this belief or reading have come to call Lilith/Lillith. (Depending on reading, earlier texts, combination with prior earlier religions, and rumor/myth/propaganda, the Lillith is the first female/wife of Adam who rejects him, also supposed mother of many demons and cause of dastardly events, namesake to Lillith Fair (yes, the female centric summer band tour, later opposite/counterpart to Lalapaloosa) and a figure to some Jewish feminists, saw herself as equal to Adam (wanted to have sex on top), et al.).

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down?

[CRCulver]

The Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos is not in the Bible. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (there's no such thing as "Eastern Catholics" in English terminology) believe that it happened because there are no physical relics of the Theotokos. We only have her Veil, while for other saints we have various corporeal relics, such as the head of John the Baptist and the skull of St Anna. However, while the Roman Catholic Church has dogmatized this by a statement ex cathedra (making it a serious dogma), the Eastern Orthodox Church has not dogmatized it, although its members overwhelmingly believe in it.

Re:Occam's Razor

[jgardn]

But, to an ID thinker, and I am sure you would agree to this, they are trying to explain the gaps. Evolutionists are more than happy to ignore the gaps. The ID thinker is trying to fill them in. Quantum Mechanics raised more questions than it answered. So did Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity. However, that did not mean it is not correct.