Vatican: Intelligent design is not science

ID is no sort of science whatsoever, actually.

To quoth James T. Kirk, "You keep. Missing. The target."

When I first read about this, it occurred to me that if I was trying to run a respected establishment of religion, I'd probably try to distance myself from the ID evangelists as well.

Note to those inclined to add concepts to posts that aren't there: saying that the Catholic Church has done something in order to further their own interests is not derogatory. Almost all organizations do things to promote their continuance, those that don't aren't around any longer such that they can be discussed.

By etymology and thus definition the word "pseudoscience" means "not science". Thus we agree that ID is pseudoscience.

~Ulrika~

poned

pseudo- or pseud-
pref.

1. False; deceptive; sham: pseudoscience.
2. Apparently similar: pseudocoel.

[dictionary.com]

Wait -- I thought it was the other sects of Christianity that supported ID. I've never heard of those guys being Catholics.

Dude, I've so totally observed it!

Thank you, Rickard. I was comfortably asleep when that was posted, you saved me the bother of doing it this morning.

Examples of pseudo-science: Snake-oil peddlers, anything dreamed up by Scientologists, perpetual motion machines, "magnetic immortality rings", and, in retrospect, healers treating the body for imbalances of "humors", alchemy and the like.

These things wear the trappings of science, and claim that science makes their concepts work, but the actual science is wrong, or outright non-existant.

Faith, however, makes no claims as to being a scientific theory. "God Exists" or "God did X"isn't pseudo-science in any form - there is nothing claiming to be scientific about it.

Faith and science may occasionaly cross, or clash. For example, faith healing... Nobody (Well, maybe a rare few extremists) is claiming that science is wrong, that drugs aren't causing people to get better. They simply also believe that in times of crisis, faith (and, by extension, God) may also do so, particularly in cases where medicine fails. Even in the cases it seem to work (It does, with a surprising frequency considering its often the last resort of the terminally ill), nobody is claiming that the recovery was a scientific happening... It was brought about by faith (Obsensibly). No pseudo-anything.

Faith fills in the gaps of a world mankind has an imperfect control over, and provides clues to knowledge beyond mortal ken. Where the ultimate evolution of many may take us, I don't know - But at this time, we are neither omnipotent nor omniprecient. Those who put their stock in a religion see God through the cracks of mortal imperfection. It doesn't mean they automaticly reject science in any way.

where as science, while requiring faith, is "too objective" to admit to anything. science needs to grow up.

I fully admit my faith in God is by faith. And now you admit your belief in macroevolution is by faith we can agree to remove macroevolution (taught as fact) from school curriculum, or at least allow it equal footing with Intelligent Design, since we agree they are both accepted by faith.

I don't actually *agree* with Kevn's position (While certain elements of science do boil down to "you have to accept this on faith", more or less, science still presents a logical, deductive set of reasoned theories that religion doesn't try to. Therefor, I'm fine with science being taught in school, while religion is not...

I believe, in the parclance of our times, Ulrika has just been "pwned".

I agree completely, science should be taught. My issue revolves around the teaching of untested theories as fact.

The theory of macroevolution has no more evidence to support it's tenants than does ID. If ID can't be included in science classes because it can't be tested, marcoevolution should be excluded as well, as it can't be tested.

Could you please, please get a new broken drum to bang upon? This one is getting rather repetitive.

Havn't any of your ever heard of FSM? If you have never heard of it just do a quick Google and you can have your "intelligent designer" all put in black and white for you. ID is a plan to get god into the world of science and biology, but without actually making any true reference to "God" in the Christian sense.

FSM is the logical response to ID and was started by one man in response to a school board ruling over here in the states (I forget which one). Since they will not say "God" is the designer, you can make an argument for just about anything, that is until all the supporters of ID lash out against the FSM movement and call it stupid, ignorent, wrong, etc.

You can see where you run into a wall here...they will not tell you the designer, but it's assumed to be a Christian God, and not a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

EDIT: And Darwin DID NOT die a Christian.
http://yeago.net/essays/resources/Did_Charles_Darwin_die_a_Christian.html

I agree most opinions I've seen haven't changed. Your opinions are pretty much repetitive. Yet I wouldn't dream of telling you to stop, I can ignore your posts if I don't like them. No one is forcing you to read my posts. So kick back and enjoy, but please try to refrain from demanding how others post.

BTW, I already know you don't like my opinion. No need repeating it, unless you want to, of course.

Ah, but macroevolution makes logical sense. That's where uniformitarianism comes into play.

Uniformitarianism basicly states that if something is occouring now, it has probably always been occouring, at least as long as the conditions nessesary to cause it to occour have existed, since we have no reason to believe the fundamental nature of the universe has changed.

We can observe X, and uniformitarianism says that that if X occoured now, and produced Y result, than X has probably been occouring since the dawn of time, and has always produced Y result. This was Darwin's point, though Lyell I believe came up with uniformitarianism for geologic studies (Could be wrong on that point, it's been a while since I've studied it).

So, uniformitarianism says that if things are evolving now to better fit their envirionment, they have probably always been doing so. We can trace evidence of this back millions and millions of years in the fossil record, and this has never changed. There have been gaps in the fossil record, but never any contridictions. IE, there are still evolutionary gaps that people can't find the transitional species for, but we have not yet found any evidence that contridicts the theory of macro-evolution natural selection.

It is, by the way, a theory. It happens to be the best theory we have at the time, and it's based on things that aren't a theory, but it's still a theory. I agree this needs to be stated a little clearer by some people, but just because we haven't invented a time machine to go back and check doesn't mean it's not worthy of being taught. It's the closest we have to an explanation that works, and science supports. Hence, it's science. It may not, ultimatly, prove to be 100% accurate - For all we know hyper-inteligent aliens seeded some species on our planet, or something - but for now, it's the best we have.

Anyone who believes honestly that "life is to complex" and it had to be created by some unnamed "designer" then I am afraid there is no hope for you. I am not afraid ito say it, even the Pope thinks it's stupid. It was stupid when I first heard about it, and it's still stupid.

Who would take blind faith over scientific fact? That is just well...stupid.

And the article in question (Not the words of the Pope, so far as I can tell, despite the fact ot originates from Vatican City) is not claiming ID is stupid. It's claiming it's not science, and does not belong in a science class.



Scientific theory, actually, not scientific fact. Nobody (well, nobody sane) is rejecting the fact that evolution is real. They reject the infered assumptions. There's a difference.

Macroevolution isn't happening now, so your point isn't valid.

Microevolution has nothing to do with macroevolution.

Microevolution uses current dna information to change the look or function of a creature, the creature never becomes a different creature.

Macroevolution suggests the dna of an amoeba changed (added new information) to become a frog, or whatever. Then the frog added dna information to become whatever.. etc etc.

IDs predictions are supported by the evidence found in the fossil record. Macroevolvtion isn't supported by the fossil record.

If macroevolution were true we would have thousands of examples of creatures that were in the process of evolving. Yet what we find are creatures fully formed. If it were happening today, we would see these creatures in the process of adding new features etc, but none are found in nature.

Lastly, the mechanism for macroevolution is completely missing.

You nailed me with the scientific fact part, yet, it's a theory but it's not like that gives ID any more respect.

And if the Pope says it's not to be taught in science classes then that makes it not science. I know he did not call it stupid, I was being blunt and rash but the Pope at any rate does not agree with all these people that think it should be taught in school.

Kevn Klein: If we are so much better than other creatures on this earth then why do we share so many DNA strands with monkies, gorillas, apes, etc? And did this "designer" put fossils here to just taunt us?

It's a question of scale. Microevolution predicts macroevolution, according to uniformitarianism.

ID doesn't need the respect of science to continue. It's not science, nor is it in any way connected to science. It's like saying the fact that Subway only has sandwhich deals on tuesday gives any more respect to people prefering white bread over wheat. It's not... really connected at all.



Actually, the pope's word doesn't make something science or not, but I see what you're trying to say.

Like I said, nobody inteligent enough to be worth listening to has ever claimed ID was *science*.

Then why are all these recent school board votes too try and include ID in biology and science classrooms keep failing? There is obviously a big push by people to try and get this non-sense in a real science setting up right next to things like evolution.

PS: I could care less what the Pope says, was just pointing out that even he doesn't like it being taught in classrooms, he doesn't like it.

Actually, despite what the media likes to present, that's not what's happening *in most cases* (There are some exceptions).

Most of the proponents of discussion of ID in school basicly want a "disclaimer" on the theory of evolution - That it is, in fact, a theory, that not everyone believes, and if you want to know more, look at books X, Y, and Z.

Some people have gone farther and actually wanted ID *taught*, but these are the minority.