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 very glad they finally did this. It's about time IMO. The Catholic Church shouldn't continue to fight losing battles. Now please let women get ordained and priests get married.
"I don't see why the two theories can't be merged"
Well, let me try to illustrate my perspective.
If you were to make the following statement in mixed company
"I believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster and that he(yes, he), had a hand in creating the universe"
it would not be taken seriously. Chances are your faculties would be privately questioned, and it could be seen as a sign of a mental disorder.
Now what you said was
"I believe in a God and that he(yes, he), had a hand in creating the universe"
Somehow, your statement is acceptable. The reality is, your statement is just as ridiculous.
So to answer your question, the reason the theories can't be merged is because people like you believe in a fairy tale, and attempt to portray it as fact.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
For the umpteenth time, ID is not an account of creation. Intelligent design is an account of how the species we observe on earth came about. It could well be that somewhere else little green men came about (either by direct divine creation or by evolution or what have you) and then came to earth and manipulated the design here by science and/or technology unknown.
You're drinking the establishment kool-aid by assuming that intelligent design is equivalent to creationism. It's not. It has different methods, different assumptions, and different explanations.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I respect the fact that you have chosen to believe in the bible as a literal work.
Respect? Really? That's the word you meant to use? Ah!, perhaps it has a different definition in your part of the world. Okay. I too respect his choice. I respect his complete lack of critical thinking. I respect his slavish adherance to the fairy tales of his childhood.
I think Orwell himself would be jaw-droppingly astounded at the kind of Double-Think that must go on in the minds of Bible literalist. The kind of self-censoring that must occur in order to keep the truth of those stories intact. Fuck! the sheer amount of information one would have to ignore or cast out! And all for nothing.
Anyway...
ID propagandists must be attacked in the same way that, for instance, white-supremacist/neo-nazi/neo-fascist ideologues are attacked.
Yes. And all those groups should be dealt with in the voting booth and with rational discussion. And, yes, that requires discussion. Something that a lot of people at Slashdot don't even want to seem to do when it comes to talking about intelligent design.
They are nutjobs hell-bent (no pun intended) on dismantling the basis of rational, secular civilization and all the advances of modern science.
Funny, after that sentence it rather sounds like you that is the radical nutjob.
I don't care what your religion is or what you choose to believe, but when you try to force your worldview on me or society as a whole, I will attack you with whatever tactics I have at my disposal.
I'll agree that no-one should force their religion or worldview on anyone else. But you should also not attempt to prevent the concept and beliefs from being discussed in public schools. For better or for worse, there are people that believe in evolution, creationism, and others that believe in this "intelligent design" concept. Mock any of those groups all you want, but we are doing a disservice to students if we intentionally omit any of these theories from our schools.
Now there are those that will say, "Sure, but do it in a mythology class." Right there, that's an inappropriate judgement that just shows that certain people are afraid to have the debate at all. They feel safer if it is pre-ordained that creationism or ID is a myth.
Is creationism or ID scientific? I would say probably not. But the origin of life is one of the few places where religion and science must intersect. While I disagree, some people would claim that science and religion offer competing views to the origin of life. As such, it is entirely inappropriate to discuss one without at least touching on the other.
If the purpose of learning and science is ultimately to ascertain the truth, it would be wrong to limit the exposure of students to only a single explanation under the excuse that it's the only "scientific" explanation. It doesn't matter if it is scientific if it's wrong, and it would be against the ideals of science to use science as an excuse to attempt to block the discussion of other explanations.
In short, the origin of life is a "special case" of science and religion. Those that want to try to drive evolution out of the classroom and those that want to keep intelligent design or creationism out of the classroom are being driven by their respective beliefs and not by an honest interest in seeking out the truth.
When it comes to what's taught in classrooms, both the anti-ID and anti-evolution factions are equally to be despised.
And, more importantly, what does he have against vowels?!?!
I can't believe this troll was modded insightful. Actually, it's Slashdot, yes I can... if it attacks religion or conservative politics, it's insightful. If it supports religion or attacks liberal politics, it's flamebait, trolling, etc.
You are saying that most Slashdot readers have a certain bias, but you are forgetting what Slashdot is. It is "News For Nerds", which generally implies it is built for a slightly above average in intelligence crowd. This may not always be true, but I am sure that your average Slashdot reader has at least slightly above average intelligence. Therefore it is pretty obvious that in such a society of smart people, religion is going to get a bad rap.
Maybe if you find a "News For Mindless Masses" site you will find people who praise religion and discard rational thought.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Put this all together and you get a conjecture that says that this "irreducibly complex" entity cannot exist according to the physical laws of the universe. Not the laws as we know them, but any physical laws of the universe. IDers don't say, "Gee, this looks like it's too complex to exist, therefore we musn't have a complete understanding of the universe." No, they say, "this must be the product of supernatural intervention."
This is a logical flaw in your understanding of ID. Proponents of Evolution state that as part of their theory, everything that currently exists is a product of natural processes. Irreducible complexity is the idea that something is too complex to have arisen by purely natural processes (evolution), not that it is too complex to exist.
I love how this forum is full of people ready and willing to unite against ID and call ID proponents everything from fascists to fundamentalists to horrible people who should be silenced at all costs. I personally don't put myself into any of these categories, but you're free to think and do what you'd like. God knows I can't stop an army of angry mutant evolutionists. :)
Ultimately, the hate I see here comes from a deep misunderstanding of our perspective and, unfortunately, a lot of crap throwing from both sides. So maybe when people like me are silenced, you can go back to attacking each other.
One thing I should mention is that ID proponents are VERY concerned with keeping science separate from religion. We also admit, as some evolutionists might not, that a theory about our origins, scientific in nature and well meaning though it might be, does have profound religious and philosophical implications.
eg.: Why the heck would a bacteria have a flagellum that is missing the few cells to make it move? It would be a waste of tissue and be discarded by natural selection. And why would it, inversely, have spinning cells unless there was a flagellum to spin?
Of course they can....oh wait...I get it...that's why you can't comprehend my argument. My argument is evolution and intelligent design can both be true. I wasn't yelling. Was highlighting my main point.You mistake everyone who believes in ID to be a fundamentialist fool. I have degrees in both science and world religion from a major engineering school. I know that the first chapter of Genesis conflicts with the second. I know it was writen by at least 4 sets of people and can explain why, in detail. However, I find Behe's arguments scientifically convincing, and until he is proved wrong scientifically, I agree with them.