![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bobby is a wonderful man. Have I said that lately? He knows that his poor, soft-hearted, easily upset wife gets depressed by reading the news too much, and so he sends me the articles that he knows will interest me. And probably get me all fired up and ranting from my soapbox. (While he laughs.)
It seems that a higher-up from the Catholic church has admitted that "intelligent design" has no place in science--least of all, in the science classroom.
I had trouble opening the article at first. Of course, that could just be my wonky State computer. Either way, here's the article, in case you want to read it but have a dinosaur like mine that doesn't want you too.
(God's hand at work? :-o)
Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer
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.
Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.
In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.
"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."
The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.
Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.
In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."
And of course, my thoughts on all this. (Cut for language...beware, virgin ears!)
And Felak says....
It's about fucking time!
I've just never seen what the big deal is about reconciling religion and science. I've never seen how it is awful--if one believes in God--to nod at the scientific evidence and believe that God helped to shape the world's outcome or set in motion the mechanisms by which life originated and evolution occurs.
Biblical literalism, frankly, scares me. The Bible says the Earth is flat, yet looking at the horizon, we can see that it is not. (Never mind the pictures taken from space that have it as a big ball and not a pancake.)
I suppose the Devil made those pictures, right? (I laugh, but I've heard people use this argument.)
Furthermore, is not the "Word of God" in fact translated by a human? Perhaps the Christian members of my flist can tell me how members of their faith reconcile the fact that the Bible has been translated from an archaic language many times over the course of history, subjected to human error and bias and censorship, and yet, they treat it as if God himself were whispering commands in their ear instead of using the general morals and values the Bible presents to guide their lives?
(This really makes me grind my teeth with regard to the "pro-family" Christians who use the Bible as an argument against gay marriage. But that is a discussion for another time; that can of worms will stay closed for the moment.)
In my college days, the evolution versus creationism/intelligent design debate was a biggy for me. Really, I guess, it still is; I'm just not part of an argumentive/non-fiction writing class where I get to constantly bring it up as a convenient topic for papers. But I did a lot of reading into this back in the day and was constantly shocked by how world-renowned scientists and skeptics would always fall to the creationists.
But, it's simple, really. I don't remember the exact quote, but skeptic and author Michael Shermer said something along the lines of science being based in debatable fact while creationism is based off of a story. So I could point out fossil evidence and have my opponent come back and say, "But it was planted by the Devil," and how am I going to refute that?
Or you could say, "There are no immortal, pointy-eared creatures called Elves" and pull out a wealth of research on how immortality and pointy ears are impossible, and I could refute, "But Tolkien says there are." How would you refute that?
(Am I treading in dangerous waters because I am suggesting that lessons be taken from the Bible as we take them from any other book? Like LotR or Harry Potter or Stephen King, if you like? Because, despite my frequent agnostic rants against the religious right, those are against a select, very minority group of people. I have no problem with religion or Christianity or even the Bible! Heck, anyone care to guess where one of Felak's favorite guiding principles, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" comes from? I think that wonderful things can be taken from the Bible...but I have a problem when people start pulling facts out of something that--were it even originally the true Word of God--has been translated more times than Madonna has been...never mind. [And I like Madonna too, before anyone jumps on me for that!] But when someone says to me, "The Earth is only a few thousand years old because the Bible says so" or "I am submissive to my husband because the Bible says so," yes, I have a problem with that. Do I have a problem when people pull guiding lessons for life out of the Bible? Not at all! I have, and I am agnostic. But I also use Tolkien to argue against the death penalty, so there ya go.)
But all in all, this article and the sentiments behind it give me hope. Not too much (because this guy will probably be silenced before long and the real loonies in the country are not the Catholics) but a bit. And every little bit counts.
It means that there's hope for progress in other areas too. Because, like it or not, the Christian lobby is one of the most vocal factions influencing our government and they would like nothing better than to see people like me shut up, locked in my home to cook and clean for my husband, with no choice but to practice celibacy or pop out scads of babies, who will go to church and pray with me every Sunday. Because I have no problem with people who believe in intelligent design or don't believe in birth control or are "pro-life" (anti-choice) or don't agree with stem cell research....
The solution is simple. Pay for your kids to go to a religious school or home school them. Don't take birth control. Don't have an abortion because you don't take birth control. And if stem cell research finds a cure for the disease you have, turn it down and suffer and die.
That's their choice. I'm not trying to infinge on that; I simply ask that they not infringe on mine--or anyone else's.
It seems that a higher-up from the Catholic church has admitted that "intelligent design" has no place in science--least of all, in the science classroom.
I had trouble opening the article at first. Of course, that could just be my wonky State computer. Either way, here's the article, in case you want to read it but have a dinosaur like mine that doesn't want you too.
(God's hand at work? :-o)
Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer
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.
Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.
In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.
"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."
The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.
Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.
In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."
And of course, my thoughts on all this. (Cut for language...beware, virgin ears!)
And Felak says....
It's about fucking time!
I've just never seen what the big deal is about reconciling religion and science. I've never seen how it is awful--if one believes in God--to nod at the scientific evidence and believe that God helped to shape the world's outcome or set in motion the mechanisms by which life originated and evolution occurs.
Biblical literalism, frankly, scares me. The Bible says the Earth is flat, yet looking at the horizon, we can see that it is not. (Never mind the pictures taken from space that have it as a big ball and not a pancake.)
I suppose the Devil made those pictures, right? (I laugh, but I've heard people use this argument.)
Furthermore, is not the "Word of God" in fact translated by a human? Perhaps the Christian members of my flist can tell me how members of their faith reconcile the fact that the Bible has been translated from an archaic language many times over the course of history, subjected to human error and bias and censorship, and yet, they treat it as if God himself were whispering commands in their ear instead of using the general morals and values the Bible presents to guide their lives?
(This really makes me grind my teeth with regard to the "pro-family" Christians who use the Bible as an argument against gay marriage. But that is a discussion for another time; that can of worms will stay closed for the moment.)
In my college days, the evolution versus creationism/intelligent design debate was a biggy for me. Really, I guess, it still is; I'm just not part of an argumentive/non-fiction writing class where I get to constantly bring it up as a convenient topic for papers. But I did a lot of reading into this back in the day and was constantly shocked by how world-renowned scientists and skeptics would always fall to the creationists.
But, it's simple, really. I don't remember the exact quote, but skeptic and author Michael Shermer said something along the lines of science being based in debatable fact while creationism is based off of a story. So I could point out fossil evidence and have my opponent come back and say, "But it was planted by the Devil," and how am I going to refute that?
Or you could say, "There are no immortal, pointy-eared creatures called Elves" and pull out a wealth of research on how immortality and pointy ears are impossible, and I could refute, "But Tolkien says there are." How would you refute that?
(Am I treading in dangerous waters because I am suggesting that lessons be taken from the Bible as we take them from any other book? Like LotR or Harry Potter or Stephen King, if you like? Because, despite my frequent agnostic rants against the religious right, those are against a select, very minority group of people. I have no problem with religion or Christianity or even the Bible! Heck, anyone care to guess where one of Felak's favorite guiding principles, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" comes from? I think that wonderful things can be taken from the Bible...but I have a problem when people start pulling facts out of something that--were it even originally the true Word of God--has been translated more times than Madonna has been...never mind. [And I like Madonna too, before anyone jumps on me for that!] But when someone says to me, "The Earth is only a few thousand years old because the Bible says so" or "I am submissive to my husband because the Bible says so," yes, I have a problem with that. Do I have a problem when people pull guiding lessons for life out of the Bible? Not at all! I have, and I am agnostic. But I also use Tolkien to argue against the death penalty, so there ya go.)
But all in all, this article and the sentiments behind it give me hope. Not too much (because this guy will probably be silenced before long and the real loonies in the country are not the Catholics) but a bit. And every little bit counts.
It means that there's hope for progress in other areas too. Because, like it or not, the Christian lobby is one of the most vocal factions influencing our government and they would like nothing better than to see people like me shut up, locked in my home to cook and clean for my husband, with no choice but to practice celibacy or pop out scads of babies, who will go to church and pray with me every Sunday. Because I have no problem with people who believe in intelligent design or don't believe in birth control or are "pro-life" (anti-choice) or don't agree with stem cell research....
The solution is simple. Pay for your kids to go to a religious school or home school them. Don't take birth control. Don't have an abortion because you don't take birth control. And if stem cell research finds a cure for the disease you have, turn it down and suffer and die.
That's their choice. I'm not trying to infinge on that; I simply ask that they not infringe on mine--or anyone else's.
Tags:
