Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
 

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution:706b1]Link to Article[/url:706b1]

[quote:706b1]The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms[/quote:706b1]

Well thank you Captain Obvious.

teaching intelligent design biggrin: so funny yet so retarded at the same time

How is he a reverend if he doesn't beleive intelligent design in true?

You can believe in God and Jesus without accepting Intelligent Design.

that's not christianity though. How can you be a reverend and not believe a core principle of the religion you are practicing

It's always a good idea to read the article you're discussing.

[quote:1c4f5]"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."[/quote:1c4f5]

[quote:1c4f5]"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."[/quote:1c4f5]

yeah, but it doesn't make sense. He's compromising on a core issue of the bible to avoid the controversy. I'm saying it doesn't make sense for a leader of a religion to beleive contrary to what the Bible explicitly says.

I don't get what he's done wrong. Makes sense to me. He's right, they shouldn't teach it in a science class. There is no science in it - It would be stupid - It's all about faith.

imwithstupid: And furthermore, who said he is a leader of the religion. Just because he works for the Vatican? I suppose the head accountant would be considered a leader also?

it says he's a reverend doesn't it?

How can it make sense? He is a reverend, yet he refuses to believe in one of the main parts of the whole religion.

GOD works in mysterious ways.


[img]http://newmusic.clearchannel.com/photos/18091043281075.jpg[/img]

So does this guy.

intelligent design is just a "theory" as evolution is a "theory" as the big bang theory is well....a "theory"

if youre going to teach one, why not them all? science hasn't disproven God or "intelligent design" for that matter, but it keeps trying.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

Evolution is NOT a theory.

I'm pretty sure Macro still is

im gonna send this to all my dumbass religious friends. dance:
On a more serious note, true big bang, evolution, and intelligent design can all be considered theories, but the difference is,
1) Big bang and evolution are theories based on science with a lot of factual evidence to support them.
2) Intelligent design is a religious theory, which ahs absolutely nothing to do with the sciences.

[quote:209ea]As used by many people, "theory" means "hypothesis", therefore a guess that can be disregarded. But "theory" in science actually refers to any coherent, organized body of ideas. The structural integrity of the Sears Tower was calculated using "stress theory" but nobody believes the Sears Tower was built using guesswork or unproven hypotheses. The portion of music training that describes notation, chords, and harmony is called "theory" although its basic ideas have been highly refined and workable since before Bach.[/quote:209ea]

[quote:209ea]The theory of evolution is much more than just a "theory." The word "theory" in normal usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a "theory" is a belief that has been verified by actual experimentation and/or observation.

Most biologists believe that evolution is more than a theory; it is an established fact. The earth's life forms have evolved over billions of years. Species of animals have been recently observed as continuing to evolve, both in the lab and field.

There remains debate about some details of past evolution. For example, there is a consensus that dinosaurs evolved and that birds evolved; there is some debate as to whether dinosaurs were the distant ancestors of birds.
[/quote:209ea]

[quote:209ea]Words in English often have multiple meanings. Words about origins are no exception.
bullet "In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact' —part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess." 1
bullet "A theory is defined as a 'speculative idea,' 'a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree,' or popularly, 'a mere conjecture'." 8
bullet In the television programs NYPD Blue, or Law and Order, a "theory" typically means a hunch by one of the detectives. It may or may not pan out.

However, in science, a "theory" is a belief that has been verified by actual experimentation and/or observation.

There are many levels of scientific theories. Some, particularly new and emerging theories may be based on little evidence. Others, like the existence of evolution, the laws governing electricity, Newton's laws of motion, genetics etc., are supported by so much evidence from such a wide range of sciences that they are very firmly held beliefs. They have existed for many decades, or even centuries. Some, like the theory of evolution, have been relied upon by generations of physicists, geneticists, cosmologists, biologists, geologists, etc. They are accepted as true facts by essentially all scientists.[/quote:209ea]

To quote the great Carl Sagan:

“Evolution is a fact, not a theory; it really happened”

will the missing link sign in please

I have seen both those points argued against very well...


Why are we debating this again, didn't we have a huge thread about this a long time ago?

[quote:d3a19]Why should science and faith be at odds at all? If religion sets out to understand the purpose and meaning of our universe -- the big "why" -- and science asks the big "how," surely the two must be related.[/quote:d3a19]

link to article

http://www.canada.com/fortstjohn/story. ... 2da0ee3ffe

Do you mean this guy? [img]http://tinypic.com/hrbqbk.gif[/img]

Links:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/CosmosNotes/cosmos2.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm

That's what people don't understand enough. Don't need to follow every fucking thing to say you have faith in God. Don't even need to be religious at all really. Intelligent Design is flawed and id call it more Ignorant Design.

i don't deny micro-evolution but macro...the jury is still out. but im not expert on much of anything but i do believe that this world we live in was no accident...i could really care less if anyone believes like me or not

That's a pretty arrogant statement. Even for you.

So you are saying you can not have faith if you do not beleive in I.D. as science ?.. Last I heard a core/the major component to christianity itself was "Jesus christ".....

[quote="Short Hand":2c678]So you are saying you can not have faith if you do not beleive in I.D. as science ?.. Last I heard a core/the major component to christianity itself was "Jesus christ".....[/quote:2c678]exactly...if I am not mistaken, Christs words were, "believe in me, and you shall be saved." He didnt say anything about adhering to every little rule, or believing in something that would be called intelligent design in 2000 years...

it's an opinion. Trust me i could give a shit what people think about it. I don't bash people cuz they are that way...but people who believe that shit sure like to tell me im wrong.