NYT:
By on Jan 19th, 2006 at 10:04 am
NYT:
“The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as ‘correct’ the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.” (via Balloon Juice)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Contrary to very popular belief, this has ALWAYS been the Catholic Church’s stance. Too many people now conflate the Evangelical Fundies with all religions in general.
That just shows how influential the Evan-g’s have become when their minority beliefs are taken so damn seriously.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:09 amOr it just means people who belittle religous folk are ignorant. I mean we can’t blame liberals for being stupid can we?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:12 amAnd now we wait to see which Republican will accuse the Vatican of “hating God”!
January 19th, 2006 at 10:13 amWhy is it so hard for liberals to acknowledge that there may have been a higher power at work which created the universe? I thought they were the ones with the open minds?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:18 amI don’t think you’ll see Republicans point a finger at the Vatican, but you definitely might see a radical evangelical like Pat Robertson do it.
Again, only stupid people equate all Republicans with all evangelicals.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:18 amWell, the fundies and many protestants don’t listen to the Roman Catholic (”Papist”) church anyway … what does the oldest Christian church know about these things, anyway?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:19 amDon’t show your ignorance here. “Liberals”, including myself, are certainly not afraid to acknowledge, PERSONALLY, that there may have been a higher power at work … we just don’t want anyone’s personal beliefs crammed down our throat by the government. Do you think all liberals are atheists? That’s just plain ridiculous. ID is NOT science – it has been thoroughly debunked and should not be taught in a science class.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:22 amFrom Bill O’Reilly’s mouth:
1. And I think the people like the ACLU, who don’t want you to mention it [ID] in your biology class, are the Taliban.
2. I think this is a concerted effort in a fascist way to punish anyone who might want to inject the higher power into any scientific discussion.
3. But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don’t want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism.
QED… The Catholic church is also some fascist, Taliban outfit. In Bildo’s opinion, that is.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:23 am#Why is it so hard for liberals to acknowledge that there may have been a higher power at work which created the universe? I thought they were the ones with the open minds?
Comment by . — January 19, 2006 @ 10:18 am
So what do you CALL this higher power?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:42 amzero yield energy?
ZPE?
The GOD particle?
The LORD?
The GOD?
THE BUDDHA?
THE EINSTEIN?
The Pope?
Reverse Time\light\gravity wave?
How so can you OR anyone here, say that Physics, nor Religious texts, nor doctor, nor scientist has ever seen or proven how this “force” works. The How do you KNOW its power?
Explain to me this Action. Piety. Is that movement or is it flow? If said that Time stands still and your conscious travels thru time.. what would you say? can I prove either one?
I cannot.
So why are you opining about you both agree that you dont know?
#7 is right on point…. The problem is having any religious group force everyone in the country to behave and act in accordance with their religious beliefs even if they use the political process to make it the law! It’s clear our founders did not intent to have a state sponsored religion shaping our private lives. It’s strange how the discussion gets sidetracked on petty details, when the big picture is easy to see. One religion can’t force it’s views on our society even if they manage to secure elected officials who agree with them.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:44 amThe Catholic Church really doesn’t understand the details of this case.
The fact is that evolution gravely contradicts the account of creation in Genesis.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:52 amI agree that we ‘dont know’ or ‘believe’
Therefore
Im going to judge you, and argue with you, and accuse you, on behalf of what you ‘dont know’ or ‘believe’ because what I ‘dont know’ or believe is ‘correct’ and your ‘wrong’
Type Mentality
Amazing. jes fecking amazing.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:54 am#The Catholic Church really doesn’t understand the details of this case.
The fact is that evolution gravely contradicts the account of creation in Genesis.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 19, 2006 @ 10:52 am
Prove either one.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:55 amcmon prove either one is more correct than the other Ruppert.
Can you?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:56 amand thats WHY we have wars.
Besides that Mr Ruppert Why does the POPE hold a ‘crystal’ on a ’stick’ to his head? isnt that kinda ‘Moon Bat-ish’ in your Lingo? Whos right or wrong the Moon bat or the Pope?
January 19th, 2006 at 11:00 amCmon Mr ruppert twist that piece of jelly floating around that Egg shell of a head we have, and think about it.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:01 amHuh? I am thoroughly perplexed by this statement. What are you talking about? Are you saying that they don’t understand the Bible?
A lot of Catholics think that Genesis actually did a pretty good job of explaining evolution and that the 6 days was just a metaphor, not to be taken literally (well, they left out the dinosaurs but if you read Genesis whoever wrote it got a lot of it pretty darned close). How does it contradict the account of creation in Genesis unless you take it absolutely literally (which I know most fundies do). There is nothing inherently contradictory about religious belief in a higher power and evolution – it’s the literalists that have a problem with it.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:08 amYou go, Mr. Ho! “I don’t know, and you don’t either” is my religious philosphy.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:15 amruppert – you can barely, if at all, understand the facts and truths THESE days – imagine if you had lived thousands of years ago – those wonderful stories compiled into “the bible” were just what the populace needed back then…
as much as i hated it then, i sure am glad for my catholic school education…
i never would have thought there could be any argument AGAINST evolution…boggles the mind…this is 21st century, not?
January 19th, 2006 at 11:22 am#14 – Rupert’s inevitable reply: “Duuuuhhhhh… …. you use fancy words! You a damn witch!”
January 19th, 2006 at 11:37 amID is the philosophy of ignorance and has no place in a science classroom, science is the philosophy of discovery.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:44 amI find it highly ironic that the Catholic Church (remember only pardoned Galileo for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun in the 1990s) is more progressive than the American Taleban.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:08 pmI am a High School Science teacher. Fortunately, not in a state that requires me to talk about something that is pure nonsense as ID… especially when there is proof to the contrary.
For example, the human appendix has no function. If the human body had been intelligently designed, we would not have functionless organs… or functionless genes (called pseudogenes) which exist but do nothing – and are the same in chimpanzees.
Look around, there are billions and billions of years of evolution at work, but zero sign of a higher power. And as long as the human skeleton is an engineering nightmare and helpless children are molested, I will never conceed that ID is even a remote possibility.
Because if creation is the premise, then who created god, or that creator, or that creator, ad infinitum? It just makes more sense that if god can exist, then the universe can exist, and therefore a god is not required.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:13 pm#4
It’s not that it’s hard to beleive it, it’s that we want equal rights for ALL religions, even the ones who don’t believe it. No religion should be taught in a PUBLIC school because we don’t want to put any one religion above another.
Why is it that REPUBLICANS think that any attempt Liberals make to make it a level playing field for ALL religion means that Liberals are trying to smother them?
Equalizing religions representation isn’t squelching them.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#22 Galileo was coetaneous of the split of several protestant branches of the main catholic branch. Too bad his investigations weren’t adopted by the new ideologies…
January 19th, 2006 at 1:13 pmMr. Ho, love your posts, keep ‘em coming!
January 19th, 2006 at 1:17 pmI agree Mr. Ho – I too, am still looking for answers. I think that is a human goal, to find out how it all started. To take a book, written and rewritten by scribes (you know, the copy guys) and give it any more credence than any other book is what I will not do. Anyway, the bible cannot be proven but evolution is on a direct path and humans will figure it out. And we will accomplish this in space and not in church.
Faith is cool and all for whomever wishes it, but I am excited by finding answers to how we got here through science and not the supernatural.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:32 pm#17 Didn’t you know that the trolls know more than the Catholic Church. If you actually read their posts, they seem to know details they got from Fox that nobody else knows. They have some kind of supercomputer at the Fox studios that they all plug into each morning (remember the Borg) and this gives them more detailed knowledge of everything.
It’s always the dumbest guy yelling about his intelligence.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:35 pm#23. I would add the strange example of the position of the human reproductive organs: (1) the location of testicles are the proof of the fallibility of God – discuss (2) what’s intelligent about siting an ‘amusement park’ next to the ’sewage works’?
January 19th, 2006 at 1:37 pm#23 Thank the GOOD EARTH for teachers like you. As long as there are intelligent educators, we have hope for our youth. If I wanted my children to address unintelligent design, I would send them to church.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:39 pm#24 They just FEEL like they are being smothered. They are paranoid.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:40 pmThere’s a scientist named Don Wise, professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, that talks about “Incompetent Design” – the fact that we still have an appendix, that we still have the remnants of a tail, that our spine is just not made for an organism that walks on 2 feet, and the fact that we have too many teeth for the size of our mouth and frequently have to get them pulled. He also talks about the “fact” of the irreducible complexity of the eye (with ID proponents go on and on about) and debunks it pretty thoroughly. He’s pretty funny – here’s an interview with him: http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2005/11/the_other_id.php
So we could say we’re “ID” proponents and no one would be the wiser! :)
January 19th, 2006 at 1:54 pmThe existence of Gary Ruppert is proof that ID is bunk. Evolution will try anything once.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:13 pm“The fact is that evolution gravely contradicts the account of creation in Genesis. Gary Ruppert”
Exactly. So does the fact that the earth is round, that the universe is ~15 billion years old, that the earth is itself billions of years old, and any number of other scientifically proven facts that show Genesis is a fairy tale. You can believe in santa claus, or adam and eve, but neither fairy tale belongs in the classroom, and adults that still believe either of them are pretty sad folks. Why are you so afraid to grow up and face the real world Gary?
January 19th, 2006 at 2:49 pmEvangelicals do not hold the Catholic Church in any great esteem, so I expect them to dismiss this latest report. The Catholic church focuses on the New Testament; the fundamentalists’ focus on hell and damnation hails from the Old Testament. (IMHO, neither one is worth my time.)
January 19th, 2006 at 3:23 pmHowever, I am glad to hear that the Church is adding its opinion to the mix because they do carry influence with the people.
Faith is self-explanatory – it cannot be proven; it is taken on “faith.” It cannot be equated with scientific theory which is far different from the layman’s casual definition of “theory.”
Why is it so hard for liberals to acknowledge that there may have been a higher power at work which created the universe?
Comment by . — January 19, 2006 @ 10:18 am
This is not a thread about a liberal point of view on how how the universe came to be.
Your post indicates that you do not know:
1.- What the Theory of Evolution is
2.- That the Catholic Church is not liberal
3.- That many Christians see no conflilct between their beliefs and the Theory of Evolution
I thought they were the ones with the open minds?
Being open minded and gullible are two very different things.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:31 pmhere’s one for you, unbelievable (and thank you for YOUR service!)…
there is a “preacher” in my area who writes letters to the editor in our local daily news…he has repeatedly offered “a $1000 reward” to anyone who can prove evolution to him…of course that would be relative to him, so he can’t lose.
but here is his proof that evolution DOESN’T exist: the “‘miracle shunt’ in the birth of a baby and all air breathers. if evolution cannot account for this, then it is done, period, yet there are thousands of like examples in nature and science. this miracle shunt in the heart of a newborn baby, flips from one wall of the heart to the other, changing the blood flow to its lungs to pick up its own oxygen supply. the very moment the baby takes its first breath, this takes place. NO GRADUAL CHANGE CAN WORK OR IT RESULTS IN A BLUE BABY OR DEATH. this completely rules out evolution’s gradual change, period.”
later in his rant, marvelling about the miricle DNA code and other examples of “invisible things of Him”, he states, “men have to be ‘willingly ignorant’ to ignore such facts of science.”
$1000…any takers? …i’ll put you in touch with the loon…
January 19th, 2006 at 3:40 pm#23. I would add the strange example of the position of the human reproductive organs: (1) the location of testicles are the proof of the fallibility of God – discuss (2) what’s intelligent about siting an ‘amusement park’ next to the ’sewage works’?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — January 19, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
Terry, oh yeah, that’s another good one. So is the coccyx (why need a tail bone with no tail), the ass-backwardness of the human eye, male nipples, nose pointing toward the mouth (jusy yummy), etc…
But my favorite example is excrement. Would an intelligent designer really create shit? I wouldn’t and I’m just a human…
January 19th, 2006 at 3:58 pm#23 Thank the GOOD EARTH for teachers like you. As long as there are intelligent educators, we have hope for our youth. If I wanted my children to address unintelligent design, I would send them to church.
Comment by progressive and proud — January 19, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
Thanks. I try to do what I can, but I’m afraid I’m just a very tiny cog in an otherwise inept machine that is trying to homogenize the youth of America into obedient little working and consuming drones. And I frequently find myself having to defend myself to those who disapprove of me encouraging the kids to think for themselves… It’s really sad.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:01 pmSo we could say we’re “ID†proponents and no one would be the wiser! :)
Comment by CarolSoprano — January 19, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Carol, as Gregor says… you beat me to it :) You’re very right. There’s much proof of form following function in our bodies, but none (logical) for the other way around.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:04 pm…any number of other scientifically proven facts that show Genesis is a fairy tale.
Comment by RightPunch — January 19, 2006 @ 2:49 pm
I like the two different versions, in the first two chapters that conflict with themselves, right off the bat… and the idea that plants were created before the sun… and light before the stars… and carnivores before death… etc.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:07 pmUnbelievable,
I posted this in the “Abramoff Stonewall Day 14″ thread, but I will repost here too.
This is the talking donkey RightPunch mentioned:
[Numbers 22:28-30]And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.
In case you are interested, here is a link to the Top 30 Bizarre Bible Verses – King James Version; talking donkey included.
And here is a link to the The Skeptical Review Online by one Farrell Till who is a former priest and now runs this website dedicated to debunking Bible inerrancy & literalism. Given your own background, I think you might enjoy it.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:10 pmthis miracle shunt in the heart of a newborn baby, flips from one wall of the heart to the other, changing the blood flow to its lungs to pick up its own oxygen supply. the very moment the baby takes its first breath, this takes place.
Comment by katy — January 19, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
I’m surprised he said this out loud as it sounds more like an argument in favor of abortion… because if there were a puppet master flipping the switch, then why would it occur after birth and not at conception?
January 19th, 2006 at 4:12 pmIn case you are interested, here is a link to the Top 30 Bizarre Bible Verses – King James Version; talking donkey included.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — January 19, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Gregor… Great! Thanks, this was as far as I’ve gotten this afternoon. I will bookmark that one!
Incredible what people will believe, huh? If I’d actually read the Bible, I’d have given up Christianity much sooner that I actually did…
January 19th, 2006 at 4:15 pmThe Catholic Church has no problem with evolution in part because while they may be reactionary, they’re not all stupid. The bible is not intended to be read by laypeople because as the word of god,it requires interpretation by those who have spent years in training. Part of this problem arises from people who “read” the bible but interpret the words based on their own experience and training which often results in a too literal interpretation.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:19 pmThat and the fact that ID is a cop-out approach. It’s anti-science,it doesn’t want to know (investigate) for fear of what might be found.
#37 – very interesting, but why doesn’t he see evolution in this “miracle shunt”? I would respond that it is indeed a miracle of nature, that humans have evolved to be able to live both in water (the amniotic fluid) for protection before birth, and breathe air (after birth). Nature selected this as the means through which mammals are born, just as nature selected that birds and reptiles give birth by laying eggs (we don’t have the protection of the eggshell, do we?) And how does he explain platypuses, who are mammals that lay eggs? They are truly stuck in time, between the way organisms originally gave birth and the way mammals give birth now. Isn’t that proof of evolution? And the body does a great many “miraculous” things like breathing, digesting, regulating temperature, etc. These can all be explained scientifically and all evolved over the course of millions of years. The “miracle shunt” is no different, is it?
And then you say he talks about the miracle of DNA. Well, since we share, what, 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, doesn’t that prove evolution? I don’t see why evolution is so threatening to these people. Many, many scientists see “God’s” hand in evolution, and they have no problem with it. I just don’t get it.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:15 pmi don’t get it either, carol (the doula, right? i could be confused here…no offense meant)
from reading the guy’s letters, i’m guessing that, because the shunt closes rapidly that means, to him, it is not an “evolved” process – as he says, “NO GRADUAL CHANGE CAN WORK OR IT RESULTS IN A BLUE BABY OR DEATH. this completely rules out evolution’s gradual change, period.†…some logic…
it used to make my son crazy – he is a chemist in grad school and could easily provide the simplest “proof” but figured out that someone that stupid and stubborn would surely not make good on any “reward”…the letters have been appearing in our paper since mid-90s…central illinois, by the way…
thing is – our school is actually leaning towards these loony-toon ways…my kids are both in college – chemistry and biology – in SPITE of that school…just in time i suppose…i sure worry about those to come…
this IS the 21st century, not?
January 19th, 2006 at 8:03 pmWell, this article, or this “ruling” by the Vatican is fully aligned with Vatican II. Vatican II took the offical stance that evolution is fully a fact of human physical manifestation, however it stated where science ends only religion could answer the nature of the soul. Which, I should point out if your not a literalist, then your faith is not miffed with seeing Genesis as allegory – like the prolific early church father Origin saw about all the OT violence by God. (And was lated branded as a heritic, & his 1,000 or so books burned and lost to history. We only know about him by his contemporaries refutations.)
Simply stated, ToE is the theory and fact regarding biogenesis, not abiogensis. Since science can only investigate the material world, it’s theories are limited because science is necessarily predicated upon a material universe. It can not talk about things beyond the material universe, and this is the middle ground that creationists attempt to smudge and destroy through arguments by ignorance or by these ridiculious probablity fantasy that the Behe’s or Hovnids of the the neo-creationist movement use successfully as a wedge to introduce a public controversy, but only a public controversy – not a scientific one.
The probablity studies are quite fun though as they reach for certianity unequivically. Too funny. I can use the same set of proofs and prove that it is more than likely that I am the big blue King Papa Smurf that creates the universe (of course since the Universe is EVERYTHING, and things must have matter to exist, then how can anything truely exist if it is preceeds the universe? Same goes for God.) in my mind.
Anyway, Behe and his ilk turn god, the creator, this travelling alien exo-biologist, into nothing more than a set of equations.
Does this mean that any math-book is a God?
No, you simply can not prove a creator by the physical sciences. If you try, you are either fallacious in your axioms or describing a natural condition of the universe.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:17 pmYes, indeed, katy – I am the doula! Thanks for remembering! It’s pretty sad, the way this country is regressing. The age of enlightenment (even the Renaissance) is definitely over. We’re not in the 21st century – more like the 11th! Are they going to start burning witches at the stake?
January 19th, 2006 at 10:31 pmCarol Soprano, I enjoy reading your thoughtful comments.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:07 pmI love you guys. It is so great to talk and listen to intelligent people that think and feel the same way that I think.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:38 amAre they going to start burning witches at the stake?
Comment by CarolSoprano — January 19, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
Don’t they now?
I mean, the death penalty might not literally be lighting a fire under ther feet, but it is lighting one in their veins… and they might not be going after traditional witches, but they villify the typical man of African heritage just the same, and convict them for their skin color all too often… and unfortunately, this notion applies to both the past (witches) and the present (convicted) with these self-righteous zealots.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:40 amCarol Soprano, I enjoy reading your thoughtful comments.
Comment by Marie — January 19, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
Same here!
And that goes to all of you bright, intelligent, educated and articulate women in this forum as well.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:42 amThe age of enlightenment (even the Renaissance) is definitely over. (…) Are they going to start burning witches at the stake?
Comment by CarolSoprano — January 19, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
What is interesting to me is to hear some right-wing, fundamentalist Christians use the word “humanist” as an insult or a putdown. Some of the trolls in this blog have used it that way.
It’s a bit frightening: A philosophy that was at the peak of the Enlightment, and that fostered the mind set that made possible the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the modern concept of representative democracy, etc., is now being vilified as anti-God.
Add that to the ID movement and what we have is a bunch of people who are trying to set the clock back to the Middle Ages, when superstition reigned supreme, and leaders ruled by the grace of God.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:28 pmdesign engineering india
%GREETINGS%…Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..holy %DAY% . Sania Mirza
March 19th, 2008 at 1:19 amlighting traditional
Nice Post… do you know what is the first? Maybe You can se My Post Here
March 26th, 2008 at 5:02 pm