Vatican Raps ID

[bruto]

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051119/NEWS/511190315/1024/NEWS04

Love them or hate them, good on ya, Rev. Coyne.

[Dragon]

From the link: - "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be,"Michael Behe is a Catholic, isn't he? I wonder what he thinks about this?

[apocalypse]

Mr. Behe will just say that the Vatican is driven by dogma and refuses to accept change.

[Melendwyr]

Mr. Behe will just say that the Vatican is driven by dogma and refuses to accept change. Oh, the irony.

When even the Vatican opposes the idea that a supernatural designer is responsible for speciation, you know it's not well supported.

[Art Vandelay]

Obviously, the Vatican believes that the ultimate cause of speciation is God. They just recognize that this is a religious belief, not a scientific one.

After all, the ultimate cause of gravity, according to Catholicism, is also God. But that doesn't mean that physics classes should be discussing God.

[Roadtoad]

Maybe if the Vatican had seen this explanation...

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20051120/lnq051120.gif

[KingMerv00]

I said it before in a different thread:

I will not take science advice from someone who believes crackers and flesh are interchangeable.

[Bronze Dog]

I will not take science advice from someone who believes crackers and flesh are interchangeable.
I think I should start making a list of sig-worthy quotes like this.

[KingMerv00]

I think I should start making a list of sig-worthy quotes like this.

Thanks for the compliment.

I always find religious infighting amusing.

Your belief is completely lacking in any empirical evidence, is unfalsifiable, makes no predictions, and is based on ignorance. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go quiver with religious ecstasy in front of this weeping piece of marble which happens to be in the shape of a virgin mother.

[brodski]

Your belief is completely lacking in any empirical evidence, is unfalsifiable, makes no predictions, and is based on ignorance. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go quiver with religious ecstasy in front of this weeping piece of marble which happens to be in the shape of a virgin mother.

That put me in mind of the fantastic scene in The Wicker Man, where Edward Woodwood is criticizing Christopher Lee because Summerisle school teaches parthenogenesis, the Christopher Lee brings up the Jesus was supposedly the son of a virgin, impregnated by a ghost. :D

[Melendwyr]

That put me in mind of the fantastic scene in The Wicker Man, where Edward Woodwood is criticizing Christopher Lee because Summerisle school teaches parthenogenesis, the Christopher Lee brings up the Jesus was supposedly the son of a virgin, impregnated by a ghost. :D What an odd objection... partheogenesis is a relatively common biological phenomenon - it's what dandelions use most (or is it all?) of the time. Why exactly would it be inappropriate to teach about it?

[jmercer]

I said it before in a different thread:

I will not take science advice from someone who believes crackers and flesh are interchangeable.

Ok, so we can scratch all of the following scientists and their discoveries off your list, correct? After all, their belief in God utterly invalidates their value as scientists...

John Philoponus
Hugh of St. Victor
Robert GrossetesteRoger Bacon
Dietrich von Frieberg
Thomas Bradwardine
Nicole Oresme
Nicholas of Cusa
Georgias Agricola
Johannes Kepler
Johannes Baptista van Helmont
Francesco Maria Grimaldi
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
John RayIsaac Barrow
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
Niels Seno
James Bradley
Ewald Georg von Kleist
Carolus Linnaeus
Leonhard Euler
John Dalton
Thomas Young
David Brewster
William Buckland
Adem Sedgwick
Augustin-Jean Fresnel
Augustin Louis Cauchy
Michael Faraday
John Frederick William Herschel
Matthew Fontaine Maury
Philip Henry Gosse
Asa Gray
James Dwight Dana
George Boole
James Prescott Joule
John Couch Adams
George Gabriel Stokes
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson
Lord Kelvin
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann
James Clerk Maxwell
Edward William Morley
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem
Georges Lemaitre
George Washington Carver
Arthur Stanley Eddington

The above list is from Dan Graves' book Scientists of Faith (Kregel Resources: Grand Rapids, MI; 1996). The book is subtitled: Forty-Eight Biographies of Historic Scientists and Their Christian Faith.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082542724X/103-4374269-6556664?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

And I'm reasonably sure that there are plenty of contemporary scientists that are also Christian - not to mention scientists who are Muslim, Hindi, Judaic and other beliefs.

[PatKelley]

What an odd objection... partheogenesis is a relatively common biological phenomenon - it's what dandelions use most (or is it all?) of the time. Why exactly would it be inappropriate to teach about it?
It does not require a male and a female; just a female in the case of skinks. I think this violates the take-two-of-each-kind bit in Genesis' flood myth.

[Melendwyr]

Newton practiced alchemy. That doesn't make his reasoned contributions to science any less valuable. Nor does it make alchemy any more respectable. And frankly, it does cast some light on the quality of his judgment that he accepted the mysticism of alchemy - some even suggest it's evidence of his supposed mercury poisoning.

[KingMerv00]

Newton practiced alchemy. That doesn't make his reasoned contributions to science any less valuable. Nor does it make alchemy any more respectable. And frankly, it does cast some light on the quality of his judgment that he accepted the mysticism of alchemy - some even suggest it's evidence of his supposed mercury poisoning.

Newton produced valid sciene while dabbling in fake science.

The Vatican has suppressed real science while dabbling in woo. (It is only recently that the Pope has graciously acknowleged that evolution is real science.)

Not really analogous.

[Melendwyr]

The Vatican has suppressed real science while dabbling in woo. (It is only recently that the Pope has graciously acknowleged that evolution is real science.) Good point. Newton produced some things of great worth. What has religion ever directly produced (instead of "inspiring")?

[Darat]

Ok, so we can scratch all of the following scientists and their discoveries off your list, correct? After all, their belief in God utterly invalidates their value as scientists......snip...

And I'm reasonably sure that there are plenty of contemporary scientists that are also Christian - not to mention scientists who are Muslim, Hindi, Judaic and other beliefs.

But how many of them believe that the wafer is actually Christ's body in non-metaphorical way?

(ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_scientists)

[hammegk]

What has religion ever directly produced (instead of "inspiring")?
A great method of crowd-control, and self-control for budding anarchists, that does not involve real fists, clubs, or guns. Civilization, anyone?

[KingMerv00]

A great method of crowd-control, and self-control for budding anarchists, that does not involve real fists, clubs, or guns. Civilization, anyone?

A desire for survival created cooperation and therefore crowd control.

Agriculture caused civilization.

Edit: I admit though, religion may be better at the crowd control part.

Edit #2: When did religion ever NOT use fists, clubs, or guns?

[jmercer]

But how many of them believe that the wafer is actually Christ's body in non-metaphorical way?

(ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_scientists)

Depends on their specific variety of faith... Catholics "believe" that the wafer and wine are instantly transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ; however, they acknowledge that the outward appearance remains that of bread and wine. To me, that's quibbling and one more piece of evidence that the Catholic Church has painted itself into a logical corner. Having said that, dismissing the value of a scientist's comments simply because he has religious beliefs is hardly a credit to the scientific method.

If the Pope were a scientist and offered a scientific theory, I would expect it to be evaluated via the scientific method - and not dismissed simply based on the fact that he's a religious leader. And if the Pope's theory proved accurate, I would expect that to be acknowledged just like any other scientist.

That's asking a lot, I know; people are human regardless of whether they're scientists or holy rollers. :)

[jmercer]

A desire for survival created cooperation and therefore crowd control.

Agriculture caused civilization.

Edit: I admit though, religion may be better at the crowd control part.

Edit #2: When did religion ever NOT use fists, clubs, or guns?

Good points, KM. Religion has always been either the victim or perpetrator of violence, Hammegk. And it's always been superb at manipulating the masses - hence "crowd control".

And yeah, agriculture caused civilization, I agree. :)

[Melendwyr]

Having said that, dismissing the value of a scientist's comments simply because he has religious beliefs is hardly a credit to the scientific method. What if he believes the Atlanteans are coming back from the sky-cities in flying saucers to conduct experiments on cattle?

And if the Pope's theory proved accurate, I would expect that to be acknowledged just like any other scientist. You added a word inappropriately.

[hammegk]

Agriculture caused civilization.
The evidence as I understand it suggests hunter-gathers were religious.

Edit: I admit though, religion may be better at the crowd control part.

Indeed, and with less fuss & bother to those in charge.

Edit #2: When did religion ever NOT use fists, clubs, or guns?
When the anarchists get too nutty, they did, and some religions still do. Force as always is the final answer. :)

[KingMerv00]

The evidence as I understand it suggests hunter-gathers were religious.

I'm sure they were, but I was referring to large-scale civilization not itty-bitty hunter-gatherer tribes. Either way they were probably held together by a sense of cooperation, not their religion. Working together to hunt is far more effective than working alone.

When the anarchists get too nutty, they did, and some religions still do. Force as always is the final answer. :)

You seem to think a religion is always a benevolent force that never attacks first. Did Christianity try to convert the New World because they were being invaded by the Native Americans? What about the collision of two different religions? Surely you don't suggest one of them must be full of anarchists.

[jmercer]

What if he believes the Atlanteans are coming back from the sky-cities in flying saucers to conduct experiments on cattle?

You added a word inappropriately.

Regarding the first comment: So what? If he publishes a theory with apparently valid proofs (or documented and valid experiments supporting his theory), then I could care less if he worshiped Ogg Magog or Mickey Mouse.

Regarding the second comment: Given the context of the discussion, I disagree. :)

[hammegk]

I'm sure they were, but I was referring to large-scale civilization not itty-bitty hunter-gatherer tribes. Either way they were probably held together by a sense of cooperation, not their religion.
Human nature has changed for the worse, apparently. I'll still go with the civilizing influence of reverence for a higher power rather than cooperating to share your hunger.


You seem to think a religion is always a benevolent force that never attacks first. Did Christianity try to convert the New World because they were being invaded by the Native Americans? What about the collision of two different religions? Surely you don't suggest one of them must be full of anarchists.
Just the same old same old -- us vs them. Strife for Economics and Power characterizes disputes between groups of men, religion perhaps offering a rallying cry for the foot-soldiers.

[KingMerv00]

Just the same old same old -- us vs them. Strife for Economics and Power characterizes disputes between groups of men, religion perhaps offering a rallying cry for the foot-soldiers.

So you are agree that religion is an effective means of armed crowd control.

[EvilSmurf]

The Vatican (through the previous Pope) was condemning creationism and accepting evolution (explicitly saying Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive) as early as the 80's. At least according to Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things", can't find the book at the moment to dig up the reference.

[KingMerv00]

"Vatican Raps ID"

Does it bother anyone else that the Pope's opinion on ID even matters?

Here we have a grown man who speaks a language no one can understand, wears a million dollar hat, and believes in magic yet somehow he is looked up to as some kind of scientific authority? Shouldn't his position on evolution be, "Here is my opinion, now go read text book."? No one is asking the Pope's opinion of particle physics.

Hmmm...old man...speaks many languages...magic...wears white on occasion...holy staff...cool hat...who does that remind me of?

http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Gandalf_White_standee-01.jpg

Oh wait, Gandalf's magic actually works. My bad.

[Jorghnassen]

Well (though this is the nth thread on the subject), I think it's good to see some religious people recognizing you shouldn't try to force some religion into science (unless one wanders into debates of ethics and science, but at that point it's an entirely philoshophical problem).

[KingMerv00]

Well (though this is the nth thread on the subject), I think it's good to see some religious people recognizing you shouldn't try to force some religion into science (unless one wanders into debates of ethics and science, but at that point it's an entirely philoshophical problem).

But this IS forcing religion into science. Millions of people all over the world are waiting for his holiness to declare evolution science rather than blasphemy. Religious people need permission to believe in facts.

Is the Pope well educated on the subject? Why are do we care what he thinks in the first place?

[jmercer]

"Vatican Raps ID"

Does it bother anyone else that the Pope's opinion on ID even matters?

Here we have a grown man who speaks a language no one can understand, wears a million dollar hat, and believes in magic yet somehow he is looked up to as some kind of scientific authority? Shouldn't his position on evolution be, "Here is my opinion, now go read text book."? No one is asking the Pope's opinion of particle physics.



It's not the Pope that's saying it; it's the Vatican astronomer, Rev. George V. Coyne. And - given his unique background and education - I believe his opinion should be taken seriously.

http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/GCoyne2.html




Coyne, born January 19, 1933, in Baltimore, Maryland, completed his bachelor's degree in mathematics and his licentiate in philosophy at Fordham University, New York City, in 1958. He carried out a spectrophotometric study of the lunar surface for the completion of his doctorate in astronomy at Georgetown University in 1962. He spent the summer of 1963 doing research at Harvard University, the summer of 1964 as a National Science Foundation lecturer at the University of Scranton, and the summer of 1965 as visiting research professor at the University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory.

A member of the Society of Jesus since the age of 18, he completed the licentiate in sacred theology at Woodstock College, Woodstock, Maryland, and was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1965. Coyne was visiting assistant professor at the UA Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (LPL) in 1966-67 and 1968-69, and visiting astronomer at the Vatican Observatory in 1967-68. He joined the Vatican Observatory as an astronomer in 1969 and became an assistant professor at the LPL in 1970. In 1976 he became a senior research fellow at the LPL and a lecturer in the UA Department of Astronomy. The following year he served as Director of the UA's Catalina Observatory and as Associate Director of the LPL.

Coyne became Director of the Vatican Observatory in 1978, and also Associate Director of the UA Steward Observatory. During 1979-80 he served as Acting Director and Head of the UA Steward Observatory and the Astronomy Department. As Director of the Vatican Observatory he has been a driving force in several new educational and research initiatives. He spends five months of the year in Tucson as adjunct professor in the University of Arizona Astronomy Department. Among his honors has been the naming of a comet (http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/images/cometCoyne.jpg) after him.

[jmercer]

Is the Pope well educated on the subject? Why are do we care what he thinks in the first place?

Why do we care what an influential head of state thinks about science????

[Jorghnassen]

But this IS forcing religion into science. Millions of people all over the world are waiting for his holiness to declare evolution science rather than blasphemy. Religious people need permission to believe in facts.

Is the Pope well educated on the subject? Why are do we care what he thinks in the first place?

I don't think so. I think this is recognizing one's area of expertise (say). If a layman asks a scientist (who happens to be a physicist, but the layman can't tell the difference), about a biology problem and the answer he gets is "you should trust the biologists", is that a physicist forcing his views on biology?

To the layman, ID is in a gray area between science and religion, and since it appears that there is a debate between scientific authorities (as the defenders of ID appear to be scientific in the not-so-well-educated layman's eye), it is therefore not a bad idea to ask the opinion of a religious authority (who, incidentally, might have a better philosophical and scientific education than said layman). In this case, the religious authority recognizes that religion has no place in science, and so ID should not be considered part of science.

[bruto]

I'm certainly no fan of Catholicism and its wacky mysteries, its virtually genocidal resistance to birth control in AIDS-ravaged Africa, etc. etc. But I still think the pronouncement from Coyne is a good thing and well spoken. It is not so much a statement legitimizing evolution as a declaration that religion simply doesn't belong in the issue, and whatever I might think of the whole RC Church, let's give credit where due.

[hammegk]

So you are agree that religion is an effective means of armed crowd control.
Yes indeed, in times of need ...that being when the existing power structure decides such measures are required to ensure they remain in power.

[BillHoyt]

II will not take science advice from someone who believes crackers and flesh are interchangeable.
Would you care to write something more transubstantial?

[BillHoyt]

Why do we care what an influential head of state thinks about science????
Dubya. Quod erat demonstrandum

[burrahobbit]

Waaaaait a minute. Dubya can THINK about science?

[geni]

The Vatican has suppressed real science while dabbling in woo. (It is only recently that the Pope has graciously acknowleged that evolution is real science.)

They probably didn't see any reason to make a specific statement since they never really dissagred with in the first place. As far as catholic theology is concerned evolution has no significance one way or the other.

[geni]

A desire for survival created cooperation and therefore crowd control.

Agriculture caused civilization.

Edit: I admit though, religion may be better at the crowd control part.


the first civierlisations appear to be theocracies and we know relgion had a havely involvement in egypt's agriculture.

[geni]

"Vatican Raps ID"

Does it bother anyone else that the Pope's opinion on ID even matters?

Here we have a grown man who speaks a language no one can understand, wears a million dollar hat

No he doesn't. The expensive crowns were given up after VC2


, and believes in magic yet somehow he is looked up to as some kind of scientific authority? Shouldn't his position on evolution be, "Here is my opinion, now go read text book."? No one is asking the Pope's opinion of particle physics.


By any reasonable standards some of the Pope's advisors are scientific authorities.

[geni]

But this IS forcing religion into science. Millions of people all over the world are waiting for his holiness to declare evolution science rather than blasphemy. Religious people need permission to believe in facts.

Erm evidence? There has been no infailible statement made on the subject either way so catholics have always been free to belive what they like on the subject of evolution (ok literal 6 day creation would be a bit tricky to fit in with catholic dogma)


Is the Pope well educated on the subject?


Considering who his advisors are he probably has a reasonable level of knowlage on the subject and you don't get as far as pope without dissplaying a reasonable level of inteligence

Why are do we care what he thinks in the first place?

You posted to this thread you tell me.

In reality it's because the guy is the head of a major organisation with a significant numer of followers in the western world.

[BillHoyt]

Waaaaait a minute. Dubya can THINK about science?
My point.

[jmercer]

Waaaaait a minute. Dubya can THINK about science?

And that's my point. His ability and understanding of science are irrelevant to the question of whether we should care about his opinion on the subject of science.

We need to care about it because the position he holds (just like any other world leader, including the Pope) has an impact on science. It may not be fair, appropriate or reasonable... but then, reality often isn't. :D

[KingMerv00]

It isn't always the advisors that do the speaking. The Pope himself has come out and declared more than once that evolution is science. If the Pope were truly interested in keeping science and religion separate, he would tell people to ask the experts (including his own advisors) or would explain in detail why he believes in evolution.

My point is that the Pope is setting himself up as an authority on the subject when he really isn't. He is certainly allowed an opinion, but the whole system is set up so that it is only that opinion that matters.

[burrahobbit]

By the way, which pope are we talking about. Has Benedict been making his views on this subject known or are we still talking JPII

IMHO the catholic church has generally been quite OK on science in the recent past except where it impinges directly on Dogma. Even there the objection seems to be on applications of science rather than science itself.

I LOVE the Dalai Lama

"If science disproves a central tenet of Buddhism, Buddhism will have to change"

[jmercer]

By the way, which pope are we talking about. Has Benedict been making his views on this subject known or are we still talking JPII

IMHO the catholic church has generally been quite OK on science in the recent past except where it impinges directly on Dogma. Even there the objection seems to be on applications of science rather than science itself.

I LOVE the Dalai Lama

"If science disproves a central tenet of Buddhism, Buddhism will have to change"

Nope. Benny hasn't spoken to this one way or the other. :)

[KingMerv00]

By the way, which pope are we talking about?


I was referring to JP the II.

[bruto]

It isn't always the advisors that do the speaking. The Pope himself has come out and declared more than once that evolution is science. If the Pope were truly interested in keeping science and religion separate, he would tell people to ask the experts (including his own advisors) or would explain in detail why he believes in evolution.

My point is that the Pope is setting himself up as an authority on the subject when he really isn't. He is certainly allowed an opinion, but the whole system is set up so that it is only that opinion that matters.

Granted, the whole question probably shouldn't come up because of course religion has never belonged in science, but realistically, religions have continually meddled where they don't belong, and this pronouncement seems to be a step in the right direction. I don't think either the pope or the papal astronomer has voiced a specific opinion on specifics of evolutionary theory, but they have stated that the study of evolution belongs to science, not religion, and that belief in evolution is not contrary to Catholic beliefs. That, at least, is a good thing to say. It's a pity that such a thing should even need to be said, but in this nutty time, it does, and no matter what else is wrong with the RC Church and its policies, at least on this issue it puts them on the right side, and science needs all the friends it can muster.

[brodski]

It does not require a male and a female; just a female in the case of skinks. I think this violates the take-two-of-each-kind bit in Genesis' flood myth.

sorry, should have made myself clear, they where teaching it as a human method of reproduction.

[jmercer]

It kind of disturbs me to see people here saying "Why should we care what the Pope says about science", because it demonstrates a level of naiveté I didn't expect in these forums. Let's divide this up into secular and religious reasoning about "Why should we care?":

Secular
The Pope is literally a head of state; as a result, the Vatican has diplomatic relations with virtually every country in the world, and there are very few leaders that wouldn't receive the Pope (or his envoy) and meet with him. This kind of access to world leadership alone represents power; added to that is the kind of public relations clout and media coverage the Pope "enjoys" world-wide... and the degree of influence he has over the constituent populations in various countries. These aspects of the Papal office mean that he has power and influence with the rest of the world out of proportion to his direct religious following. (A not-insignificant power base by itself, I might add.)

Secondly, the idea that an opinion offered by someone on science who is not a scientist is irrelevant is self-contradictory. Sagan knew that the perception of the non-scientific community concerning science was (and is) ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to the scientific community. In other words "Joe Schmo and Jane Doe's" opinion of science can have a direct and relevant impact to the amount of funding and support that science enjoys - both directly and indirectly.

In fact, I'll make the claim that the controversy surrounding ID and education exists strictly because the opinion of the "common person" concerning science matters. So suggesting that the opinion of a highly public, well recognized and influential figure like the Pope should be irrelevant is merely wishful thinking at best; at worst, it could be considered elitist arrogance.


Religious
The Pope isn't merely a religious figure; he is the key religious figure for 1.1 billion Catholics, and - on a world-wide basis - one of the very few easily identifiable religious leaders in existence for Christianity. (And at 2.1 billion adherents, Christianity is the largest religion on the planet.) There are other Christian leaders of note, but as far as the world is concerned, the Pope pretty much speaks for Christianity - no matter how much that galls other Christian leaders.

So when the leader of the largest religious sect in the world (a sect that represents more than half of the worlds adherents in that religion and is also the de facto religious leader for the overall religion) speaks about anything - including and especially science - it's important.

If you dismiss the current comments by the Vatican's astronomer as irrelevant (And I'd like to see the logic behind dismissing his secular degrees and experience!) and if you dismiss JP II's comments concerning evolution and the church, you should consider what the impact would be if Coyne and JP had come out with the reverse position. What if Coyne had said "ID should be taught as science in schools", or if JP had said "Evolution is merely a theory and should be ignored by all true Christians"?

The Pope (and the Vatican, and the Catholic Church) are the proverbial 800 lb Gorilla. You can choose to deplore it's existence, but the gorilla's still there. Be happy it's on your side. :)