See other Religion Articles
Title: Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
Source:
Yahoo News
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution
Published: Nov 18, 2005
Author: Nicole Winfield
Post Date: 2005-11-18 16:58:22 by Zipporah
Keywords: Intelligent, Official, Vatican
Views: 1214
Comments: 66
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."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 52.
#26. To: Zipporah (#0)
BTW, I have a very good friend who's whole family condemns evolution and subscribes to creationism. A few friends actually. I've listened to a lot of arguments on Christian radio that support so-called intelligent design, but most of them I've found kinda shallow. Also, it seems to me the core argument in favor of ID is that evolution can't explain this or that, the inference apparently being that if it wasn't evolution it MUST therefore be ID. But that's not a scientific approach to arguing in favor of ID. It's merely circumstancial. It's not important to me HOW God made the universe. In fact as a programmer myself it's easy to be impressed with the Master Programmer who created all merely authoring it's laws of physics and pressing the Start button 15 billion years ago. To me, if that's how it happened, that's really, really awesome. Creationists don't question the scientific claim as to the size of the universe, do they? If not, Why shouldn't the universe be as old as it is huge? I fear some creationists are erring by basing their faith not in God, but ironically, in science in attempting to argue *how* life came to be. In the christian realm, it's not important *How* God did it, is it?
If the Bible is the word of God as it says it is. Then you can count back to the creation beginning. It was thousands of years ago. God himself said in Genesis 2v4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, It says right there that is when he created them. If you compromise and accept billions of years as some christians do. And buy into all that evolution stuff then you have to say that their was death and dying prior to adam and eve. God said there was no death before sin. So if you accept the Bible as to what it claims to be then you have to believe in a young earth. How can it be any other way?
If you accept the Bible as the literal Word of God, then yes, you must also accept the age of the universe as some 6000 years. Consequently, if you believe the universe is some 15 billion years old, you must accept something in Genesis as at minimum, less than literal. An in depth debate is more than I have time for at the moment, but in reading Genesis if you start reading from, I think, chapter 2 verse 4, you'll find that it reads as though it's a brand new story of creation. It's as though chapter 1 and the first 3 verses of chapter 2 are a complete story of creation, and verse 4 begins another version, much as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are different versions of the Gospel. But why is it like that? I don't know, though some argue it is evidence of two ancient stories placed back to back when both are found pleasing. Taking a scientific view, Genesis says the world was created in 6 days, and yet the sun and moon weren't created until day 3. That being the case, by what measure of "day" were the first 2 days of creation, when there was not yet any sun or moon? How can time be scientifically measured in days without the sun? Do those first 2 days really have to be a 24 hour days? Is physical death the same as spiritual death? Whatever the state of creation prior to Adam and Eve, I can accept it was indeed pleasing to God.
How long is a day in
Same as it is now.
Same as it is now. How many species of dinosaurs did Noah have on his arc?
Only French dinos need apply..
damn, I was so hoping to get in the ground floor with my new personality:
There are no replies to Comment # 52. End Trace Mode for Comment # 52.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#27. To: Neil McIver (#26)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#27)
If the Bible is the word of God as it says it is. Then you can count back to the creation beginning. It was thousands of years ago. God himself said in
And buy into all that evolution stuff then you have to say that their was death and dying prior to adam and eve. God said there was no death before sin.
#37. To: Neil McIver, A K A Stone (#34)
dog God years? Human years? Human years measured by dogs?
#41. To: Dakmar (#37)
How long is a day in dog God years? Human years? Human years measured by dogs?
#44. To: A K A Stone (#41)
(re:lenght of creation days)
#46. To: Dakmar (#44)
#52. To: Zipporah (#46)
Only French dinos need apply..
Replies to Comment # 52.