"Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design"

[Firetxmi]

Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 4 minutes ago

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

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."

His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" — whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Full Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution

[rocket13]

Beat me to it!!!

Even the church thinks it doesn't belong in the science classroom...

[LaoSexMachine]

Danm, but aren't most of the people who want it in schools are Evangelicals and Baptist?

[rocket13]

Danm, but aren't most of the people who want it in schools are Evangelicals and Baptist?

A bunch of crazy nuts....
much like this woman
http://www.break.com/articles/tradingspouses2.html

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well now, since the Vatican says so, then it must be so. I'm glad we're all in agreement that the Vatican is the authority on all things science p-)

[Count Lippe]

Wow, the Vatican slowly begins to think logically.woot

[ElHombre]

damn. even the catholics are farther scientifically advanced than american evangelicals. of course, it doesn't take much...

[rocket13]

Well now, since the Vatican says so, then it must be so. I'm glad we're all in agreement that the Vatican is the authority on all things science p-)


It just takes them 300 years to acknowledge the achievements........;)

[dangerclose]

Now if they can only stop molesting children.

[rocket13]

Now if they can only stop molesting children.


One thing at a time, they are still trying to purge the gays in the priesthood.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Hey I just noticed...the Vatican has a "chief astronomer"? What for? Is the Vatican worried that NASA and all the other space agencies have missed something?

BTW - I find it a bit hypocritical that somebody professing to be a person who believes in the divine origins of the universe says that intelligent design is poppycock. Unless of course the astronomer thinks God is an idiot, and believes in "idiot design" instead.

[rocket13]

I think what the church is saying that Intelligent design doesn't belong in the science classroom. That it is better taught in the history and religious classes. What they are saying is that science should be taught in science classes and this is not something scientific.

The church has had a scientific branch for a very long time. I do not remember when it was created. But pbs had a 3 part history on the universe and mentioned them. The reason behind the department was after galeao (sp?) and the Rennesance, their was huge strides made in science and in research. The church didn't want to be left out or caught with their pants down so they created this department.

[dangerclose]

Where is Intelligent Design "refuted" in that article?

Intelligent design is not a religious exercise. It's proponents are not necessarily bible-believers but are merely being intellectually honest by acknowledging the obvious: Life is too complex to have happened by accident. Intelligent design does not go into specifics, it only proposes that someone or something intelligent at one time had a hand into how life was formed. There are atheists and agnostics who subscribe to the idea of intelligent design.

Biochemical researcher and professor refutes Darwinism


"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

With this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It's a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly.

Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls "irreducible complexity." In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.

As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap.
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5849/mousetrap8kd.jpg

It contains 5 interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.

Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.

How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box"-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated.

In fact, Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. As we saw before, such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner-it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. Remember, Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually hinder survival and would be selected against.

But Behe is not the only scientist to recognize irreducible complexity in nature. In 1986, Michael J. Katz, in his Templets and the explanation of complex patterns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) writes:
"In the natural world, there are many pattern-assembly systems for which there is no simple explanation. There are useful scientific explanations for these complex systems, but the final patterns that they produce are so heterogeneous that they cannot effectively be reduced to smaller or less intricate predecessor components. As I will argue ... these patterns are, in a fundamental sense, irreducibly complex..."
Katz continues that this sort of complexity is found in biology:
"Cells and organisms are quite complex by all pattern criteria. They are built of heterogeneous elements arranged in heterogeneous configurations, and they do not self-assemble. One cannot stir together the parts of a cell or of an organism and spontaneously assemble a neuron or a walrus: to create a cell or an organisms one needs a preexisting cell or a preexisting organism, with its attendant complex templets. A fundamental characteristic of the biological realm is that organisms are complex patterns, and, for its creation, life requires extensive, and essentially maximal, templets."
Behe presents several examples of irreducibly complex systems to prove his point, but I'll just focus on one: the cilium. Cilia are hair-like structures, which are used by animals and plants to move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your respiratory tree sweep mucous towards the throat and thus promote elimination of contaminants) and by single-celled organisms to move through water. Cilia are like "oars" which contain their own mechanism for bending. That mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules that are arranged in a ring. Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types of "bridges"-a flexible linker bridge and an arm that can "walk" up the neighboring microtubule. The cilia bends by activating the "walker" arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to generate is converted to a bending motion by the flexible linker bridges.

Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff microtubules, linker bridges, and the "motors" in the form of walker arms. While my description is greatly simplified (Behe notes that over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular system), these 3 components form the basic system, and show what is required for functionality. For without one of these components, the system simply will not function. We can't evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the microtubules will be fixed and rigid-not much good for moving around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not do any good either-there is still no motor and the cilia still will not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep on sliding past each other till they float away from each other and are lost.

This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe discusses in his book, Darwin's Black Box. Other examples of irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality.

Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes."

[dangerclose]

One thing at a time, they are still trying to purge the gays in the priesthood.

But purging gays from the priesthood would = no more priesthood.


Oops .. did I just say that?

[rocket13]

But purging gays from the priesthood would = no more priesthood.


Oops .. did I just say that?


You have a point there, then they would be forced to umm I don't know, maybe allow priests to marry. Call my crazy but that might be a worth while concept.

[ElHombre]

It's proponents are not necessarily bible-believers but are merely being intellectually honest by acknowledging the obvious: Life is too complex to have happened by accident.

short version: 'we can't figure out how it happened so we're giving up and invoking god. anyone who disagrees is a blasphemer.'

[Herrmannek]

have you ever saw a priest in person?

[rocket13]

Where is Intelligent Design "refuted" in that article?

Intelligent design is not a religious exercise. It's proponents are not necessarily bible-believers but are merely being intellectually honest by acknowledging the obvious: Life is too complex to have happened by accident. Intelligent design does not go into specifics, it only proposes that someone or something intelligent at one time had a hand into how life was formed. There are atheists and agnostics who subscribe to the idea of intelligent design.

Biochemical researcher and professor refutes Darwinism


"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

With this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It's a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly.

Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls "irreducible complexity." In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.

As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap.
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5849/mousetrap8kd.jpg

It contains 5 interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.

Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.

How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box"-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated.

In fact, Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. As we saw before, such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner-it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. Remember, Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually hinder survival and would be selected against.

But Behe is not the only scientist to recognize irreducible complexity in nature. In 1986, Michael J. Katz, in his Templets and the explanation of complex patterns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) writes:
"In the natural world, there are many pattern-assembly systems for which there is no simple explanation. There are useful scientific explanations for these complex systems, but the final patterns that they produce are so heterogeneous that they cannot effectively be reduced to smaller or less intricate predecessor components. As I will argue ... these patterns are, in a fundamental sense, irreducibly complex..."
Katz continues that this sort of complexity is found in biology:
"Cells and organisms are quite complex by all pattern criteria. They are built of heterogeneous elements arranged in heterogeneous configurations, and they do not self-assemble. One cannot stir together the parts of a cell or of an organism and spontaneously assemble a neuron or a walrus: to create a cell or an organisms one needs a preexisting cell or a preexisting organism, with its attendant complex templets. A fundamental characteristic of the biological realm is that organisms are complex patterns, and, for its creation, life requires extensive, and essentially maximal, templets."
Behe presents several examples of irreducibly complex systems to prove his point, but I'll just focus on one: the cilium. Cilia are hair-like structures, which are used by animals and plants to move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your respiratory tree sweep mucous towards the throat and thus promote elimination of contaminants) and by single-celled organisms to move through water. Cilia are like "oars" which contain their own mechanism for bending. That mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules that are arranged in a ring. Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types of "bridges"-a flexible linker bridge and an arm that can "walk" up the neighboring microtubule. The cilia bends by activating the "walker" arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to generate is converted to a bending motion by the flexible linker bridges.

Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff microtubules, linker bridges, and the "motors" in the form of walker arms. While my description is greatly simplified (Behe notes that over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular system), these 3 components form the basic system, and show what is required for functionality. For without one of these components, the system simply will not function. We can't evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the microtubules will be fixed and rigid-not much good for moving around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not do any good either-there is still no motor and the cilia still will not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep on sliding past each other till they float away from each other and are lost.

This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe discusses in his book, Darwin's Black Box. Other examples of irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality.

Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes."

By that concept if one part is missing then everything collapses. During the black plague a small percentage of Europeans with a deficient gene (forgot the name of it, ill look it up later) were able to survive contact with just a fever and a mild case. Those who had both parents with that deficient gene, and had that where also able to survive the plague without even getting sick. The decendents of those people today are immune to AIDS because of the lack of the gene. They are missing something and are able to function just fine and continue on free of the risk of the plague and AIDS.

[Herrmannek]

short version: 'we can't figure out how it happened so we're giving up and invoking god. anyone who disagrees is a blasphemer.'

You see its not about don't knowing how it happened, its about probability that to happen...It mutch easier to believe that someone did it, than in lucky chain of ultimate coincidents, even considereing earth have a lot of particles and it had a lots of time, to happen something with even limited funcionality of the cells that could pull the evolution further like it was planed by God...

[tsuri]

Hey I just noticed...the Vatican has a "chief astronomer"? What for? Is the Vatican worried that NASA and all the other space agencies have missed something?
The Vatican Agency is older. The chief Astronomer of the Vatican checked Galileo´s theories and said they were correct ;)

There are no idiots in the Vatican, back in the days of Galileo they were of course more interested in upholding their monopoly on knowledge.

No news that the Vatican hates ID. There is not enough God in it. They are smart enough to understand that the existance of a god and the evolution of species are not exclusive.


Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems
Yes a "theory" where god/Elvis/the Easter Bunny comes about: Hey I need a cell and BAM there is a cell is of course a lot more sound....

[Kaapeli]

The irreducable mousetrap you say?
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/IntelligentDesign/4-mousetraps.gif

Supposedly these all work somehow but obviously not as well as the most complex piece. But that's evolution.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

No news that the Vatican hates ID. There is not enough God in it.


Well, that's a pretty astute observation. That kind of outside of the box thinking is not encouraged here, so knock it off! :)

Honestly, I think that's what a lot of people miss. It's like string theory - there is not just one string theory - there are bunches of them. Saying "string theory is BS" is therefore a pretty broad statement. ID applies to all creationist beliefs - i.e. all religions believing that the creation of the universe was not just a happy coincidence where everything worked out. I find it strange that anybody claiming to be an open-minded scientist could discount such a broad-based concept, when so much relating to the origins of the universe, even within science, is based on faith.

[rocket13]

Well, that's a pretty astute observation. That kind of outside of the box thinking is not encouraged here, so knock it off! :)

Honestly, I think that's what a lot of people miss. It's like string theory - there is not just one string theory - there are bunches of them. Saying "string theory is BS" is therefore a pretty broad statement. ID applies to all creationist beliefs - i.e. all religions believing that the creation of the universe was not just a happy coincidence where everything worked out. I find it strange that anybody claiming to be an open-minded scientist could discount such a broad-based concept, when so much relating to the origins of the universe, even within science, is based on faith.


Because the history of religion has not been known for open mindness toward science.

[ElHombre]

Well, that's a pretty astute observation. That kind of outside of the box thinking is not encouraged here, so knock it off! :)

Honestly, I think that's what a lot of people miss. It's like string theory - there is not just one string theory - there are bunches of them. Saying "string theory is BS" is therefore a pretty broad statement. ID applies to all creationist beliefs - i.e. all religions believing that the creation of the universe was not just a happy coincidence where everything worked out. I find it strange that anybody claiming to be an open-minded scientist could discount such a broad-based concept, when so much relating to the origins of the universe, even within science, is based on faith.

then place the particulars of a theology to empirical testing. if it can withstand review then congratulations. otherwise, stop trying to claim religious belief is science. i myself would like to hear the details on how a person can rise from the dead after a few days.

[dangerclose]

The irreducable mousetrap you say?
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/IntelligentDesign/4-mousetraps.gif

Supposedly these all work somehow but obviously not as well as the most complex piece. But that's evolution.


lol good luck catching a single mouse with that 'evolving' mouse trap.

Those incomplete traps might work if the mouse ate the cheese and just happened to die of old age on the spot.

[Wodan]

By that concept if one part is missing then everything collapses. During the black plague a small percentage of Europeans with a deficient gene (forgot the name of it, ill look it up later) were able to survive contact with just a fever and a mild case. Those who had both parents with that deficient gene, and had that where also able to survive the plague without even getting sick. The decendents of those people today are immune to AIDS because of the lack of the gene. They are missing something and are able to function just fine and continue on free of the risk of the plague and AIDS.


Its not a gene thats loss, its a gene thats mutated, and its not a "small percentage" till nowadays it went up from totally 20,000 persons to nowadays 10% of northern and central europeans... (if we get a aids epedemy like africa has, it might get up far higher)

The mutation is called CCR5delta32, mouses with CCR5delta32 didnt survive longer or die less often than other mouses, in tests with black plague, some scientists think that the reason for the many people ine urope with CCR5delta32 cant be the black plague, but must have bee n one or several diseases that attacked T-cells

[Atlantic Friend]

Hey I just noticed...the Vatican has a "chief astronomer"? What for? Is the Vatican worried that NASA and all the other space agencies have missed something

The Vatican observatory was created by Pope Gregoire becuase the old Roman calendar - called the Julien calendar - had outlived its usefulness, resulting in months lagging behind celestial mechanism, seasons being thrown off track, and so on.

As it was a question that had deep religious impact (like, finding WHEN Christmas was supposed to becelebrated, for example), he asked Jesuit scholars from the Roman College to devise another calendar, which had to be supported by celestial observation.

As for the building that is today the Vatican's observatory, it was built in the early 1890s behind St Peter's cathedral, and was later displaced due to local pollution that hindered sky observation.

[nagant_m44]

short version: 'we can't figure out how it happened so we're giving up and invoking god. anyone who disagrees is a blasphemer.'

heres the short version of evolution: "ok lets make a theory based on circular reasoning with questionable at best evidence. DO NOT MENTION GOD, repeat, DO NOT MENTION GOD. Anyone who disagrees is a close minded idiot.

[tsuri]

heres the short version of evolution: "ok lets make a theory based on circular reasoning with questionable at best evidence. DO NOT MENTION GOD, repeat, DO NOT MENTION GOD. Anyone who disagrees is a close minded idiot.

This is in fact Inteligent Design.

Circular Reasoning: The Designer exists because lifeforms are very complex.
Lifeforms are very complex this is why they have to be designed.

Do not mention god, call him a Designer instead. This way you disguise this religious attitude as science.


Evolution is science. It ENCOURAGES anyone to to prove it wrong. Using FACTS! It does not mention god because there is no evidence that supports it´s existence. There is nothing that cannot be explained without summoning an omnipotent beeing in this theory.

Creationists are dependent people who want something to believe in. Science can not give them this belief because tomorrow everything we know today can be falsified and changed.
As an Analogy just imagine the pope coming out of the Vatican and telling people that Jesus was a Hoax ;) Religion cannot do that. It has to stay dogmatic just like ID has to stick to this creator.

If you have evolution then you try to understand how the species came into existance. On Sundays you can think about who might have defined the parameters of our universe but just believing in something that can not be verified and not be falsified is idiotic and it is the attitude that brought us Suicide Bombers who believe in 72 Virgins in paradise.

[Lazy Lob]

then place the particulars of a theology to empirical testing. if it can withstand review then congratulations. otherwise, stop trying to claim religious belief is science. i myself would like to hear the details on how a person can rise from the dead after a few days.

x2

Faith and theoloogy do not even attempt to explain why things happen. They just say they happened full stop. Don't dare ask more.

Science first starts of with "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory". The more that theory is tested and survives the more the scientific establishment will accept it and thus will yield more scientific advances. A certain degree of faith in a hypothesis must exist for a scientist to know what experimentation to use to pass it onto theory level. Theories can be replaced by other newer and better theories and most, if not all, scientists accept this.

But this faith a scientist has in his hypothesis is based on the urge for knowledge and accepting there is an unknown that we may never understand but we must strive to find the best explanation.

To compare this hunger for explaining why and how things work with theological faith is absurd.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Creationists are dependent people who want something to believe in. Science can not give them this belief because tomorrow everything we know today can be falsified and changed.
As an Analogy just imagine the pope coming out of the Vatican and telling people that Jesus was a Hoax ;) Religion cannot do that. It has to stay dogmatic just like ID has to stick to this creator.

If you have evolution then you try to understand how the species came into existance. On Sundays you can think about who might have defined the parameters of our universe but just believing in something that can not be verified and not be falsified is idiotic and it is the attitude that brought us Suicide Bombers who believe in 72 Virgins in paradise.

Oh now here I though you had it, and now you've blown it all to hell. I guess I misunderstood what you said in the other post. You're not thinking outside the box at all. You're in the box, packed in Styrofoam, and wrapped in anti-static film.

You're misrepresenting what ID is. And your assertion that "believing in something that can not be verified and not be falsified is idiotic" - is very amusing considering that there is not a single scientific explanation for the origin of the universe that can be "verified and not falsified".

Science, whatever flavor of it you choose to believe in - whether it's the big bang, the big rip, the big dump - whatever - is a faith based dogma every bit as much as a magic squirrel creating the universe. Nobody knows. In fact, the closer scientists get to the beginning, the more they begin to ponder the chicken-or-the-egg aspects of it. Science tells us that an object at rest stays at rest, unless acted on by another force.

One moment there was no matter, no energy, no vacuum of space, and no time (which is just another dimension created at the beginning). There was no huge empty black room for gas to expand into - it all erupted from one point. So, what acted on it? Itself? When - and how can there be a "when", when there is no "before" time?

ID does not even require the belief in a God. One could quite easily believe that what we would consider "God" started our dimensions of space-time, but died in 1969 after seeing what a sh*tty Daren Stevenson **** Sargent made while replacing **** York on Bewitched. IMHO that is why the Vatican is distancing itself from ID - it does not require Jesus, or their flavor of God, or even a living God. They are taking the wise, conservative tack of sticking to their rule book.

[Firetxmi]

I have to say, I am a fairly religious person. I have to agree with the Vatican on this. Teach ID, but don't teach it in the science classroom. Kind of like how you would not read a Tolkien book in a college course titled "Survey of Major Works of Non-Fiction." Everything has its place, but ID's place is not in the SCIENCE classroom.

[tsuri]

is very amusing considering that there is not a single scientific explanation for the origin of the universe that can be "verified and not falsified".
Yes. It can not be sufficiently explained. And as long as we do not have more facts, we can not do anything about it. We have our hyptothesis but none of them is good and nobody claims that anything that science produces is fully true or fully compliant with reality. It is what we make from the facts. Religion claims to be telling the truth but all they say is derived from a thousands years old book written by people who thought the world was a disc(in the case of christianity). It is pure fiction.


ID does not even require the belief in a God.
Yes not enough God in it. But whatever you call it, it is just a speculative idea. We might as well say that Evolution is controlled by a guy who is playing our universe like a videogame. But as long as there is no clue about that, we keep it out. There is as such no evidence that can only be explained with a "Designer" We have simple lifeforms, we have complex lifeforms, we have things in between.

I can happily live without knowing how the Universe came into existence instead of believing in a non fact, namely that a supernatural being created it.

[dangerclose]

... tick .. tick .. tick. We're all three seconds closer to finding out for ourselves.


Intelligent design is too vague and leaves too many questions unanswered.

Intelligent design: It's warm outside I wonder what tomorrow will be like?
Genesis: Its 74 degrees fahrenheit and 20% humidity. Tomorrow's forecast calls for 78 degrees and mostly sunny.


The Bible is not a science textbook and should not be taught as such inasmuch as science is the pursuit of the truth and the Bible is the absolute truth. One day the two will meet. His Word doesn't change .. science has.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Yes. It can not be sufficiently explained. And as long as we do not have more facts, we can not do anything about it. We have our hyptothesis but none of them is good and nobody claims that anything that science produces is fully true or fully compliant with reality. It is what we make from the facts. Religion claims to be telling the truth but all they say is derived from a thousands years old book written by people who thought the world was a disc(in the case of christianity). It is pure fiction.

Says who? Why are you assuming all religion is from some old book? Why such narrow definitions?



Yes not enough God in it. But whatever you call it, it is just a speculative idea. We might as well say that Evolution is controlled by a guy who is playing our universe like a videogame. But as long as there is no clue about that, we keep it out.

Why? There are many unproven hypothesis that are introduced in science class. Who is to decide which of these unproven theories is better than others? ID does not endorse any particular religion, it simply offers the possibility of all religions. To exclude it is to discount all religious beliefs from Buddhism to Paganism to Scientology to Hinduism to Atheism.



I can happily live without knowing how the Universe came into existence instead of believing in a non fact, namely that a supernatural being created it.

But you must realize that no matter what your particular belief of the origin of the universe, it is a non-fact. Why is your non-fact any better than somebody else's?

Not trying to pick on you here- I just find this interesting - as if people are complaining about how narrow minded and "blind" religious people are, without realizing how narrow minded and blinded they themselves are being..

[Atlantic Friend]

The Bible is not a science textbook and should not be taught as such inasmuch as science is the pursuit of the truth and the Bible is the absolute truth. One day the two will meet. His Word doesn't change .. science has.

Interesting point. In which respect is the Bible absolute truth, for you ? Do you think it must, as the absolute truth, be taken literally for every topic it includes, or must it be interpreted to take into account the evolution of human society ?

[dangerclose]

Interesting point. In which respect is the Bible absolute truth, for you ? Do you think it must, as the absolute truth, be taken literally for every topic it includes, or must it be interpreted to take into account the evolution of human society ?

If it's the absolute truth then it's the absolute truth for me and you and everyone and everything in existence regardless of whether I believe it or not.


What you or I believe has absolutely no bearing on what is true. As far as the truth evolving ... if something is absolutely wrong does it matter if the entire world decides over time that it's right and vice versa? There may come a time when adults having *** with children will become socially acceptable (ahem .. Europe) .. but does that make it right?

[Atlantic Friend]

If it's the absolute truth then it's the absolute truth for me and you and everyone and everything in existence regardless of whether I believe it or not.


What you or I believe has absolutely no bearing on what is true.

Precisely, if it's the absolute truth, do you think we should all live strictly according to its stated principles and rules ?

[sir-chimp]

Not trying to pick on you here- I just find this interesting - as if people are complaining about how narrow minded and "blind" religious people are, without realizing how narrow minded and blinded they themselves are being..

I have yet to meet some one who claimed to be open-minded, that was in reality anything close to being so. The problem is so many people don't grasp the meaning of a term before they start tossing it around. It just sounds hip and cool, and in their mind adds to the defense of their beliefs. Also it gives them a unfounded sense of superiority over those who don't share in their beliefs. While all it really does is make them look like the hypocritical fools they are.

[tsuri]

Says who? Why are you assuming all religion is from some old book? Why such narrow definitions?

(in the case of christianity
Heck there are people who believe that the world was created by a giant turtle. I can´t criticise them all :p

Also Creationism is only really big with christians.


Why? There are many unproven hypothesis that are introduced in science class.
Hypothesis are not really introduced into science classes. And IF then they are treated as what they are and not as a fact or as a theory.


But you must realize that no matter what your particular belief of the origin of the universe, it is a non-fact. Why is your non-fact any better than somebody else's?

Simple. I do not claim that a non fact is a fact. I say that the current evidence suggests that the universe was once one point. Tomorrow I might find out that the Universe was once a giant pancake. Then I will adapt my hyptohesis/theories. Religion says: God made the universe. Basta!
Intelligent Design says: Gee our universe is very complex. Someone must have built it. Even if they agree with me in all other points, they will introduce a piece of fiction into their theory that makes it less scientific than mine.


Not trying to pick on you here- I just find this interesting - as if people are complaining about how narrow minded and "blind" religious people are, without realizing how narrow minded and blinded they themselves are being..

I am narrow minded? Why? I can´t explain the world with fiction! I need evidence, facts something I can measure. I cant measure god, there is not the slightest hint that he exists. The best we have is superstition.
Same with our "Designer" Who is he? have we ever encountered a single evidence that he exists?

To use an analogy:
You leave your house. The street is wet. What is more likely? That natural effects have caused rain or that a giant that was never known to exist,was never seen and never heard of has peed onto the street?

[dangerclose]

Precisely, if it's the absolute truth, do you think we should all live strictly according to its stated principles and rules ?


No because it's impossible.

[dangerclose]

Same with our "Designer" Who is he? have we ever encountered a single evidence that he exists?



A painting is evidence of a painter .. a novel is evidence of an author.

The DNA strand is a code but ..... IT JUST HAPPENED.

[sir-chimp]

I am narrow minded? Why? I can´t explain the world with fiction! I need evidence, facts something I can measure. I cant measure god, there is not the slightest hint that he exists. The best we have is superstition.
Same with our "Designer" Who is he? have we ever encountered a single evidence that he exists?




I think you just answered your own question

[dangerclose]

i myself would like to hear the details on how a person can rise from the dead after a few days.


Easy ... if He (Jesus of Nazareth) was in fact exactly who He claimed to be - God incarnate and as proof did exactly what He said He would do.

I myself would like to hear a likely and credible explanation for the empty tomb if the resurrection was a hoax.

[Jani.R]

Easy ... if He (Jesus of Nazareth) was in fact exactly who He claimed to be - God incarnate and as proof did exactly what He said He would do.

I myself would like to hear a likely and credible explanation for the empty tomb if the resurrection was a hoax.

1. They lied about emty tomb.

2. He was buried somewhere else.

3. His body was stolen from the tomb by his fanatical followers.

[dangerclose]

1. They lied about emty tomb.

When Jesus' disciples were proclaiming in the streets of Jerusalem that Jesus was risen why didn't the pharisees who were hostile to them simply open up the tomb and drag out Jesus' corpse for all to see? End of story.

The resurrection message could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact.


2. He was buried somewhere else.
The Roman soldiers whose job it was to guard Jesus' tomb with their lives to prevent his body from being stolen to propagate some 'resurrection' myth somehow failed to make sure Jesus was actually buried there before sealing the tomb. And then the disciples lied about the resurrection.


3. His body was stolen from the tomb by his fanatical followers.
The same disciples who when Jesus was arrested, fled and hid like cowards, suddenly mustered up the courage to take on the detachment of professional Roman soldiers charged with guarding the tomb (under penalty of death) and somehow overwhelmed them and stole the body and then of course lied about the whole resurrection.

All three of your scenarios even discounting their slim to none chance of success have Jesus' disciples knowingly perpetrating a hoax. And at what gain? Their leader and cause was dead . They faced nothing but hardship and persecution by continuing on.

Of the 12 disciples, 11 of them willingly died martyr's deaths proclaiming Jesus Christ was risen from the dead. Now who would die for a lie? You could say that throughout history there have been many who have died for a lie (Jonestown, the Heaven's Gate cult and the 9/11 hijackers being more recent examples) but the difference with those examples is that they died believing it was true whereas if the Resurrection were a lie the disciples knew it. Who then would willingly die for a lie knowing that it was a lie?

When Jesus was arrested, his followers abandoned him. When confronted, Peter denied that he even knew Jesus. But days later those same disciples were boldly proclaiming throughout Jerusalem under penalty of beatings, imprisonment and death that Christ had risen. Later when Peter was crucified he was nailed to the cross upside down by his own request because he felt himself unworthy to die in the same manner his Master did. What caused this sudden and dramatic change in Peter and the other disciples?

He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:5)

When told by the other disciples that Christ had risen, the skeptic Thomas said he would not believe it unless he saw and felt the nail prints in Jesus' hands. Thomas later died a martyr's death proclaiming that Jesus was risen.


This is all circumstantial evidence but I find the apostles' testimony trustworthy. They sealed it with their own blood.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

(in the case of christianity
Heck there are people who believe that the world was created by a giant turtle. I can´t criticise them all :p

Also Creationism is only really big with christians.

I was going to try to address each of your points separately, but my post was horribly long winded.

If you demand proof in order to call something a fact, then you cannot logically call a created universe a "fiction". To do so violates your own rules. If you are true to your principles of scientific discovery and proof, then you must allow it as a possibility, no matter how much you may personally dislike it. ID proposes to offer creation as only one of infinite possibilities for the origin of the universe. Leaving it out does a huge disservice to the minds of the kids who are there not to memorize facts but to discover how to think.

The concept of a created universe is so much larger than just Christianity - there are infinite possibilities. Newtonian physics states that an object at rest will stay that way (i.e. an uncreated universe will stay uncreated). Is it therefore likely that in some place, which cannot exist because nothing exists, where 3 dimensional space and time do not exist, suddenly, for no reason, due to no action, reality generated itself by accident? Why does this single event get to violate every rule in the book? Logically, if reality worked that way, it would happen constantly.

Or is it more likely that our reality is only part of a larger universe that we are unable to comprehend or experience, and that due to some action in it, our reality was generated? Kind of a tossup if you ask me.

The fact that some believe in outlandish ideas of a God who does parlor tricks on demand has nothing to do with the concepts at work in the beginning. Some intelligence that we would consider "God" may have created our 4D reality on purpose, or by accident. That "god" may be a huge disappointment to us - hell, maybe this was all just a tabletop experiment gone bad, generating a new dimension that we expanded into. The concept of an intelligence behind the origins of the universe is far broader than just the idea of an old white dude with a long beard surrounded by fat flying babies.

I read a lot about this crap, it's very interesting to me. Check out some of this stuff for a quick primer if you're not already familiar with it. You may find that science is slowly finding out that things are not as they seem.:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
http://blueox.uoregon.edu/~karen/astro123/lectures/lec18.html
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/quantum_astronomy_041111.html (the first of 4 linked articles that are very interesting)

..and I promise there is no "J" or "G" word anywhere in there..

[tsuri]

If you demand proof in order to call something a fact, then you cannot logically call a created universe a "fiction". To do so violates your own rules. If you are true to your principles of scientific discovery and proof, then you must allow it as a possibilit
I understand your point but I do not believe in the contents of theory but in methods. It may be a possibility. Such as the possibility exists that we are all simulated or whatever. But! It is fiction as long as there is no EVIDENCE that suggests it might be true.
It is just as possible that mice rule this planet. But we have no evidence for that. It would not be scientific to stick to all kinds of possibilites.


suddenly, for no reason, due to no action, reality generated itself by accident? Why does this single event get to violate every rule in the book? Logically, if reality worked that way, it would happen constantly.

It does not work for the creation of the universe. Everything we have in science and reality was created when the Universe was created. We do not know anything about what was before. We may never anwser this question.
Maybe someone created the universe, who knows?


I can agree with you on lots of statements. But I have to insist that we may not base science on pure speculation on what might be possible. It is dangerous. We have to observe reality and draw conclusions.


You may find that science is slowly finding out that things are not as they seem
Yes that is the idea behind the whole concept of science. We improve our knowledge by the use of scientific methods. What we know today is most likely inaccurate and maybe even wrong to some extent. But we have used methods that can insure us that what we know can be checked and is of equal quality.

I will try to read the texts when I find the time. Some interesting speculations from a quick glance.


A painting is evidence of a painter .. a novel is evidence of an author.

The DNA strand is a code but ..... IT JUST HAPPENED.
The formation of DNA can be sufficiently explained with chemistry and biology. Why introduce something that is not needed? If you introduce the Designer, you introduce something that is outside of known science. Religion can have you believe that someone controls Evolution as the catholics do. But leave that out of science please.

Also Evolution is dumb. Lots of idotic life forms exists. heck there is a spider that has to eat one of it´s reproductive organs so it can actually move. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/14/4883
Which Designer would design that? We have lots of simple hints that mutations have no aim, they just happen and sometimes they work, most of the time they do not. No Observation of Natural Selection suggests that somehow actively species are being intelligently designed.


If it's the absolute truth then it's the absolute truth for me and you and everyone and everything in existence regardless of whether I believe it or not.
I pity you.

[rocket13]

A painting is evidence of a painter .. a novel is evidence of an author.

The DNA strand is a code but ..... IT JUST HAPPENED.


Ok so someone created DNA, god whatever else you want to call it.

So who created the creator or did he / she just happen?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I can agree with you on lots of statements. But I have to insist that we may not base science on pure speculation on what might be possible. It is dangerous. We have to observe reality and draw conclusions.


Hmm - maybe we disagree on what science is? You seem to regard science as a collection of established verified facts. I see it as a process where speculation leads to investigation which leads to knowledge. If we fail to speculate and to hypothesize, then discovery stops. Obviously we have to be careful to distinguish theory and speculation from verified facts...but nobody is proposing that ID be introduced as a fact. As I said, it sure as hell doesn't belong in a history class. It's just one of many possibilities that people should investigate for themselves.

[tsuri]

It's just one of many possibilities that people should investigate for themselves.
ID has never stopped beeing a possibility. It has not reached the area of a theory despite beeing thousands of years old.
It should be clear to a student that everything he learns at school or university reflects the scientific progress that has been made so far and is not a dogma or a fact.
If we started to treat possibility and theory alike for the sake of having something to decide, then we will weaken our scientific progress.


You seem to regard science as a collection of established verified facts
That is what you make a theory from.

Progress begins with observation or measurement of nature. From then you can make speculations on possibilites and see which of these speculations can explain everything you observe, without violating a good theory and wich is as simple as possible. This enables you to formulate theories.


I see it as a process where speculation leads to investigation which leads to knowledge
This is scientific as well but you have to keep in mind that if one theory sufficiently explains reality, why would you want to speculate on other possibilities that even ADD more uncertainty.

I can understand that a cell or a lifeform looks complicated and someone might suspect that it was somehow created. But until there is not a fact that proves that evolution is fundamentally wrong,we should stick to it and not look out for new theories.

Another Problem I have with the ID Speculation: If the Designer was a life form: who designed the Designer?

[pathfinder82]

A bunch of crazy nuts....
much like this woman
http://www.break.com/articles/tradingspouses2.html

Yeah, but they are only in this country.

Go to any other country and if the debate exists it hasnt been taken to the point some evangelicals have taken it to in the US. Burning down a pricipals house because he doesnt agree with your views is not very christ like.

[Belrick]

Science, whatever flavor of it you choose to believe in - whether it's the big bang, the big rip, the big dump - whatever - is a faith based dogma every bit as much as a magic squirrel creating the universe. Nobody knows. In fact, the closer scientists get to the beginning, the more they begin to ponder the chicken-or-the-egg aspects of it. Science tells us that an object at rest stays at rest, unless acted on by another force.


Absolute dog bollox. I have faith my car will start, i may not know the workings of how and why but sure as a christian has his head in the sand i can go read a book and find out. So yes i have faith in engineering since im an ignorant but its not REQUIRED.

However bible bashers can never ever prove there theory of invisible floating beings in the clouds you can only see once dead, to be correct.

[Belrick]

A painting is evidence of a painter .. a novel is evidence of an author.

The DNA strand is a code but ..... IT JUST HAPPENED.

But you assume this painter to be the same one written about by jews thousands of years ago. Will you conceed that the painter could just as easily be a alien from epsilon nine running a lab experiment?

You look at dna and see a god.
Our ancestors looked at fire and saw a god.

Theres no difference, in the realm of understanding natural workings youre just as primitive. The complexity of life overwhelms you to the point you invent invisible friends to explain what is beyond you.

[dangerclose]

But you assume this painter to be the same one written about by jews thousands of years ago. Will you conceed that the painter could just as easily be a alien from epsilon nine running a lab experiment?

You look at dna and see a god.
Our ancestors looked at fire and saw a god.

Theres no difference, in the realm of understanding natural workings youre just as primitive. The complexity of life overwhelms you to the point you invent invisible friends to explain what is beyond you.


I am impressed. You truly are omniscient to know with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist .. that is he's just an imaginary friend. I guess by definition that makes you a god yourself.

[FallenAngel]

Wow, the Vatican slowly begins to think logically.woot

I've never heard intelligent design put forth by any Catholic (clergy or lay person) as a replacement theory to evolution.

[Secret Squirrel]

But you assume this painter to be the same one written about by jews thousands of years ago. Will you conceed that the painter could just as easily be a alien from epsilon nine running a lab experiment?

You look at dna and see a god.
Our ancestors looked at fire and saw a god.

Theres no difference, in the realm of understanding natural workings youre just as primitive. The complexity of life overwhelms you to the point you invent invisible friends to explain what is beyond you.

Amen brotha, I do believe! tabernacle! testify! And so fourth. But hey, who knows...maybe there's a 6 or 8 armed figure at the center of the earth controlling everything. ;)