Intelligent Design Not Science, Says Vatican Newspaper

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.

The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields.

For more on the story, go here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm.

Comment: It remains to be seen whether the MSM will announce that "the Vatican" has declared that Intelligent Design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools.  But of course you shouldn't be surprised if it does.

Comments

[mark]

Funny how 'evolution' as Darwin defines it fails the Scientific Method, yet it is still touted as fact in some circles. I have read Dembskis' books, and the mathematics and logic he uses is fascinating and in my mind, proves God made us...no mere chance as the Darwinists proclaim. It is not that difficult.

[Jason]

Evolution is regarded as fact only by those who are scientists and have done extensive research in the field, as well as those smart enough to trust that these experts know what they are talking about. You can choose to believe evolution is not a fact, but you would be wrong. On the same level, you could choose to believe that you can fly, but I wouldn't suggest that you start flapping your arms and jump off a building. ID is not science and has no place in any science class.

[Patrick Coulton]

If one reads the article one might note
that the biology professor from Bologna
seems to contradict himself.

First he implies that secondary causes are
sufficient to explain creation

I quote
***************************

"God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous interventions that point in this or that direction," it said.

***************************

and
then he admits that the Church teaches (and expects
assent to such) that a willful act of God is
necessary to explain the creation of humans.

and I quote
*******************************
What the church does insist upon is that the emergence of the human supposes a willful act of God, and that man cannot be seen as only the product of evolutionary processes, it said.

*******************************

To Jason: I thought the theory of evolution was a theory
when did it become a fact? Please cite.

[Carl Olson]

Exactly what form of "evolution" is Jason referring to? Micro? Macro? Darwinian? His faith in "evolution" is obviously sincere, but raises many questions about the real nature of science, theory, and fact.

The CNS makes light, I think, of one of the biggest problems in all of this:

"The article said that, unfortunately, what has helped fuel the intelligent design debate is a tendency among some Darwinian scientists to view evolution in absolute and ideological terms, as if everything -- including first causes -- can be attributed to chance."

That's an understatement if I ever read one. The fact is, many Darwinians insist that their science (or is it "science"?) proves that there is no God. But science cannot prove or disprove any such thing; it can only prove claims or offer theories about observable material processes/objects. This overstepping of boundaries is a major problem, but one that is hardly ever (if ever) noted by the MSM. Do supporters of ID also overstep that boundary? Perhaps. But, if they do, they certainly get called on the carpet about it far more than their opponents ever do.

[Schonborn Site]

Mark, how very right you were: http://www.cardinalschonborn.com/2006/01/new-york-times-comments-on-design-vs.html

[unapologetic cathoilc]

"It remains to be seen whether the MSM will announce that "the Vatican" has declared that Intelligent Design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools."

The MSM will be quite coorect is saying so. That is what the article said.

"To Jason: I thought the theory of evolution was a theory
when did it become a fact? Please cite."

You muast not have taken a science class. "Theory" in science means a collection of well docuemted fact--like theroy of gravity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Answers in Genesis is a young earth creationist site, believing in a literal 6 day creation. Even they have a list of argumetns considerd so stupi they shouldn't be used.

Evolution is merely a theory is, of course, one of those.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

[Patrick Coulton]

to unapologetic catholic:

Since you seem to know so much, what
exactly do you mean by the theory of gravity?
I have done some research in the field and
I don't know anyone who understands what gravity really is.

not only did I take a science class
I have a degree in physics and I teach science classes
at a university. I suggest you find a dictionary
and look up the definition of theory and the
definition of fact.

BTW you are not the sheriff of definitions.

Finally - you know my name I don't know yours.

[Unapologetic Catholic]

Patrick,

Thank you but you wown't need my assistance after all.
Resources are much closer to you than any I can provide.

You can go to this website.

http://www.eiu.edu/~biology/index.htm

You're probably familiar with it.

you can also audit this class:

http://www.eiu.edu/~biology/bio_courses/bio3950/index.htm

this class

http://www.eiu.edu/~biology/bio_courses/bio3952/index.htm

Or you can ask Dr. Bollinger and Dr Mullin what they think of intelligent design and ask them to explain why evolution is a vey powerful theory, more than a fact.

or you can ask a scientist at your own university's bilogy website link here:

http://www.eiu.edu/~biology/ask_an_expert.htm

it will lead you here.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio98.htm

which answers all your questions.

You can also simply print out this post and the comments, talk to the biology professors at your own university, find out what they think of intelligent design and report their thoughts here.

They will, of course, explain to you quite a bit about biology in generl and evolution in particular.

[Patrick Coulton]

Dear U.C.

First, I don't ever remember saying that I did not beleive that evolution was a legitimate theory. Please cite.

Second, I thought you were going to explain the theory of gravity.

Is a 'theory is more than a fact' the same as 2 + 2 = 3?

BTw I know a lot of biologists - I coach soccer against Eric (Bollinger)
and I always walk up sixth street to to Jeff's (Mullin) house for a
reading of Poe on holloween. He's pretty good ... you ought to attend.

But I must be frank with you (I wish I knew your name).
Evoultion can not pass muster as a legitimate
science since you can not replicate the claims in a laboratory.

1) The idea that natural selection can account
for variation in chromosones is preposterous.

2) If we admit that mutation is a primary factor then
there is no scientific way to quantify the variations - one
might as well say that anglels cause them. Yet modern biologist
are forced to use this idea.

3) Many biologist are atheists
and promote these ideas publically in order to promote atheism.