The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be,” the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. “If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.”
Just thought I’d drop this in for “reflection” over the weekend.
WARNING: member of religious literalist grouping /WARNING
I agree with the Reverend totally. Of course, I don’t think macroevolution should be taught along side microevolution and gravity and thermodynamics, either. I mean, some don’t like ID and some don’t like MACRO-E. Let’s just toss them both and call it a day.
P.S. I’m really not trying to start a debate or argument or heated discussion, but I still don’t have an idea of what the test is for macro. Could someone please tell me here or direct me straight to a page that gives an example? I’d really appreciate the knowledge.
Lance, you’ve already asked that question once http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=3236 and someone was kind enough to direct you to an answer. You can either accept the answer or not, but by asking a second time you clearly ARE trying to start an argument.
Ah, but this Coyne isn’t INFALLIBLE now, is he?
Personally, I don’t believe that evolution started as a chance combination of atoms.
But I could believe in a God who has progressed beyond our own science and did the very thing our biologists are trying to do. If they succeed in making a living cell from raw materials, will they believe that their creation came through intelligent design? Or trace it all back to random seeding of the earth with organic molecules, and claim that since we came about from that random occurrence, anything we invent must be the result of evolution too.
I recall my comment and the response. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I must have worded it poorly. I wanted a direct answer or a link to something specific. That front page had a load of different links with no info, so I was lost. I apologize for confusing you. I really don’t want an argument. I just like to hear all sides of an argument before I decide what’s right and wrong.
Thanks for keeping up with my poor mechanics, though. You’ve been helpful Imafish.
Those Jesuits ain’t afraid to undermine them Baptists, nosireee!
“If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.”
Enough said. Now, how to get everyone to recognize the difference between the scientific “theory” and the vernacular “theory,” so we can start to have intelligent discussions in the media? (Har har)
I mean, some don’t like ID and some don’t like MACRO-E. Let’s just toss them both and call it a day.
Creationists/IDers continue to misunderstand exactly what this debate is about, which is exactly the reason why they shouldn’t be responsible for science curricula in public schools.
It’s not a question of which is right or wrong, or which you “like” and don’t like. It’s a question of which is science is which isn’t.
ID isn’t science. Creationism isn’t science. Evolution is science, whether it ultimately proves right or not.
And btw, the distinction between macro and micro is purely a political one concocted by Creationists because even they couldn’t ignore the fact that evolution happens right before our very eyes.
Everyone knows Intelligent design is the results of religious extremists… And the sadest thing is that it seems to be an american thing. The Vatican like the rest of the world sees it for what it is…
If it’s helpful to anyone on this blog, here is one definition of science, distilled from writings by folks like Popper, Sagan, Gould, Einstein et al:
Science is not an imposing body of knowledge trying to roll like a juggernaut over people’s belief systems. It is like a very loose group of professional ‘skeptics’, arguing incessantly about who is the most right about something. It requires the utmost care and objectivity towards concepts such as empirical observation, rules of evidence and flexibility towards that which supersedes previously established ideas and research results.
And also, here is a quote from Einstein that I find very interesting
(I’m a quoting person, because sometimes others just say it far better than I ever could). To wit:
“Nature never says Yes to a theory. It’s almost always No. The best anyone can expect (if they’ve done good research), is a Maybe. But never Yes.”
(the above words in italics are mine, added just to clarify it a little).
So, it’s true then, that evolution is ‘only’ a theory. However… a large number of careful people who’ve looked at it quite closely seem to agree that it is probably a correct one.
And to folks who want to throw their faith-based ideas into this ring, they must somehow learn (and I’m sure they’ll eventually have to, if history is any guide) that the aforementioned goes for their theories, as well.
That said, I do though think that there is a place for religious faith in the world… it shores up our sense of purpose, morality etc… but it sure seems to also run aground on the rocks of tribalism, factionalism static beliefs and a whole bunch of other ‘doms’ and ‘isms’ that cause many folks to just not take it seriously anymore.
It’s not a question of which is right or wrong, or which you “like” and don’t like. It’s a question of which is science is which isn’t.
ID isn’t science. Creationism isn’t science. Evolution is science, whether it ultimately proves right or not.
And btw, the distinction between macro and micro is purely a political one concocted by Creationists because even they couldn’t ignore the fact that evolution happens right before our very eyes.
While I would love to believe everything you say simply because you say it, I am forced to ask for proof of stuff you say. I really just want a direct answer or a direct link. I’ve heard everything you are saying before. Please, just answer some of these:
Why is macroevolution scientific? Why can’t you say micro and macro are different? Where is the proof for macro? What is the test for the theory? Where is the scientific process?
I mean, I love hearing that I’m just a creationist that doesn’t understand and that creationists just made this stuff up, but tell me why and give me some proof. I actually understand that argument, and I didn’t help make it up. Answers are all I want.
I’ve already said ID and Creationism don’t need to be taught in science class. So tell me why macro should.
Thanks.
While I would love to believe everything you say simply because you say it, I am forced to ask for proof of stuff you say.
Others have explained evolution and provided links so I won’t be redundant. Obviously you’re not interested in links, facts or proof. You’re pretending to be incredulous in order to appear to inquisitive, like everything you believe is a product of reasoning and deliberative thought.
But you’re a Creationist. Which means that while you DEMAND proof of evolution, you’ve never actually done so with your current beliefs, which makes your incredulity a bit hypocritical. Which means that no amount of this “proof” you seek will ever be good enough for you to believe in evolution and that no amount of proof at all (beyond the Biblical reference) was required for you to believe in Creationism.
That is what I mean by you not understanding the debate. You don’t understand science. You don’t understand that evolution (again, there is NO scientific distinction between macro and micro) is a product of the scientific method, a theory borne out of observation, hypothesis, and testing. And that the scientific process behind evolution is the same as that behind the germ theory of disease or string theory. Some of it is more immediately provable or reliant on immediate observation than others, but ALL of it is science.
Milo, don’t do it. You sound like someone who relies on name-calling etc., which many people understand to be a nowhere behavior. You’ll never convince anybody of anything by doing that… all you’ll do is make them even more defensive of their right-ness. Those of us who are trying to make sense of this debate (on both sides of it) will benefit much more from careful and considerate evaluation of other’s views, no matter how wacky they may seem to be to “us”. In the end, such talk will simply say more about you than about them.
Do you want to sound like an Osama bin Laden? Then just keep on spewing it the way you do.
I’m not much of a formally educated guy myself, but I’ve found that perfectly intelligent people come out of absolutely anywhere, no matter what they look like or where they are from or what kind of cultural upbringing they had. And many people-of-faith are in fact that way, too, it turns out. They just think differently than I do, that’s all.
Okay Lance, now to you, I have some questions:
1. Why is it that you need such absolute ‘proof’ for anything? Why can’t you accept the idea that the world might not be what we (or you) think it is or should be?
2. What do you think of this statement?:
“The difficulties and issues of human existence may not have been a concern at the time of creation.”
3. Do you think that human beings are ‘special’ compared to other beings and organisms that we share this world with?
4. What do you think of this statement by the Catholic Church admitting that the whole ID/Creationism thing is some kind of white elephant that they don’t want to be a part of?
I’m not trying to give you some kind of high-fallutin psychology test or anything… these are just questions that fascinate me, and as you seem to be someone who is religious, I’d love to hear what you think of them. There are many more ones I have but time may not give us much to debate it before the the thing gets rolled off by Mr. D’s other revelations. If you don’t feel like responding, that’s okay. I can give my own if it stays around long enough.
JG I’ve already done it, I’m proud of it and I’ll do it again. I go to church regularly. My church believes in evolution as do I. Culture is not science nor is the reverse true. I have demonstrably answered the question that Lance posed. I don’t care if I’ve convinced him. I care if I can offset his slimy propaganda and yours.
Okay, slam the door and go off to church then. Some clergyman (I forget who) once said “Churches are quiet islands in the stormy seas of life”, which I think is true, especially if you want to get away from the world’s slimy ideas etc.
I was taken to church a lot when I was a kid, but never could understand why people would believe in all those strange improbable things. The architecture was nice, though. Looking back now that I’m old, I think they were just trying to give me a sense of belonging and morality, which was good of them. I think I’ve since found out how to deal with those things on my own, however, and feel that I’ve done a fairly decent job of it so far.
(But If for some reason I had to go to church services nowadays, I would prefer it to be the African-American Baptist kind. They seem to have so much FUN with it!… so unlike the dreary singing and bland oratory and mummery I was brought up on).
(sorry if I’m getting off-topic here… hope it’s not too irrelevant).
Thank you all for responding. I’m sorry it took a while for me to get back. Milo, thanks for sending me a link to this page. I plan on reading it and giving it careful consideration. I realize I must have sounded ignorant but I only converse humbly to prevent name-calling and generalizations.
It cut off the rest of my post. There were about 10 more paragraphs. Hmmm…
I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of what I said.
Would Africans be considered a separate creation of God, distinct from Europeans?
Would ID make the statement that Africans, being distinct, are not equal to Europeans — but different?
God’s writing was handed to specific chosen peoples. Are those people his preferred creation; the highest example of his creation?
Here’s an excerpt from a stand-up routine called “Hezekiah”, by the late-50’s comedian Lord Buckley:
(Hezekiah, a lonely old black preacher, was being hounded by white bigots. He was wizened and poor, did a little hoeing and raised what he ate, kept a few coins aside in a jar for what he called, “Da rainy theathon”)
“Do you believe in the Lord??”, said the white man’s preacher.
“Heh… Ah ain’t seen the Lord no-how”, said Hezekiah.
“You don’t believe in nothin!”, said the white man’s preacher.
“Oh yes Ah do”, said Hezekiah. “Ah believe that a man should be beholden to his neighbor.”
So they hung Hezekiah, as high as a pigeon. And all the “good” folks around said, “Waall, he had it comin’…. ‘cuz the son-of-a-bitch didn’t have no religion!”
Lord Buckley ruled!
JG,
I wouldn’t be surprised it that was a true story which was probably repeated thousands of times during the Crusades. I just came across this quote recently in a signature line which is pertinent to your last post.
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” – Voltaire
I’m surprised we ever got to the point where we no longer hold onto the idea that the Earth is the center of the Universe. I guess after losing this one, the Church has a bit of hesitency in wanting to be thought of as a science. Though, I’m very interested in seeing the Church’s proven theorem in regards to Noah’s Ark. : )
BTW, I wonder which one would go up quicker if the idea of an intelligent creator was absolutely disproven…Suicides or Homicides?