RoR: Forum

I wish the Vatican would issue a statement that God doesn't like Connie Morris:

http://www.ksde.org/commiss/ksbe5.html

(Edited by Christy L.
on 11/18, 11:09am)

(Edited by Christy L.
on 11/18, 11:21am)

Post 1

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 2:15pm

The following from the article is pretty clear.

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."

One BIG one down. Now how many to go?

Thank you for that, Jody.

Michael

Post 2

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 2:57pm

Interesting find, Jody. As befits a mystical organisation it's not actually clear *what* the Vatican is saying. What is certain is that they must feel that ID theory is a challenge to the authority of the church. They may even suspect that in accepting evolutionary processes within the context of a miraculous creation will lead not to a retrenchment of evolution--specifically abiogenesis--but an illumination of it.

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

Gotta hand to those Doolans. Spare the rod, spare the child!

Ross

Post 3

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 9:30pm

The Vatican? The article reports a statement by one Jesuit monsignor (not even a bishop, a single step above ordinary priest in the hierarchy.) It also reports at least one archbishop saying otherwise. The Jesuit states an intellectually respectable, Maimonidean-Aristotelian position, but one Jesuit does not make the official opinion of the Vatican.

Post 4

Friday, November 18, 2005 - 10:19pm

Correct Adam.

Thank you.

Still a long ways to go...

Michael

Post 5

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 11:19am

What's back of ID is not Catholics, they're fundamentalists. My guess is that the Catholics, who are already dealing with a maverick congregation in the U.S., perceive the growing herds of new RW fundies as somewhat of a threat. It wouldn't suprise me if their congregation is being picked off (or picking itself off) by the mainstream RW movement, which is much more "personal" and sexy (you know what I mean, and it ain't nookie). This is a real threat- there is a big problem with shinking going on in Catholicism.

I'm not really sure what the "astronomer" title consists of anymore over there, I'm guessing it might even involve science at this point, almost surely so because you're talking about a Jesuit in this case. That particular position might be pretty prominent, regardless of his rank.

rde
This is all weird, but politics and marketing are surely involved.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 11/19, 11:21am)

Post 6

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 11:25am

I wish the Vatican would issue a statement that God doesn't like Connie Morris

I'm thinking God definitely doesn't care for her, given how things have gone and ended up for her. Sheesh. Appalachian, incest, rape, drugs, and then JEEEEZUS. Eek.

Post 7

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 11:29am

Rich,

Maybe looking toward any church is not the right place to find the true source of interest in teaching ID in public schools.

You might try looking in the Bushes...

Michael

Post 8

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 1:46pm

ID is an attempt to use reason to support creationism, and is a step in the direction of using reason to support the existence of God.

Catholics know that the properly applied and consistent use of reason leads inevitably to atheism for a person who is honest and willing to face the truth. (look where St. Thomas Aquinas got them!)

Religion's only hope is blind faith and the avoidance of reason on matters of faith.

ID attempts to prove God exists because of the complex and consistent "rules" that apply to the physical universe. But they have it backwards. The God they believe in is not limited by any rules, so why would he need a consistent universe? The Christian God could have easily "have made two great lights the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night." Genesis 1: 17. The God of the bible would have no need for gravity or electromagnetic fields.

Post 9

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 3:20pm

It was a nasty post on my part, Rich. Just frustrated with state politics.

Post 10

Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 5:52am

Christy,

Connie Morris looks like some crazy Christian version of Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Jim

Post 11

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 4:23pm

Steve:

"Religion's only hope is blind faith and the avoidance of reason on matters of faith."

Correct, hence organized religion's antipathy towards ID, and it's actually more consistent and honest within the context of their dogmatic belief system.

The metaphysics of religion are believable only in terms of blind faith. Any step towards ID is a compromise on the side of reason, or at least an *attempt* to reason. If you can accept ID with a creator as the prime mover, it's not a very big step to accepting it *without* one. And that's what we call evolution.

Ross

Post 12

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:22pm

Apropos ID - from the new scientist.

Darwin wins one fight as another begins

19 November 2005

Celeste Biever

As eight of nine members of a pro-intelligent design Pennsylvania school board are voted out, Kansas state votes in anti-evolution school standards.

IT WAS a stunning victory for one community, but a mixed week for science. Eight of the nine members of Pennsylvania's Dover Area School Board, which is being sued by parents for promoting intelligent design, were voted out of office by local residents last week. But on the same day, new anti-evolution school standards were voted in by the Kansas state education board.

"It's a mixed bag," says Witold Walczak, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the 11 Dover parents in the trial, which is now awaiting a verdict. "We are certainly heartened by the vote in Dover. But Kansas is a wake-up call to the science community that the anti-evolutionists are persistent and powerful."

Post 13

Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:30pm