Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design

[deadparrot]

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution

[MissMarple]

1. In the 60's, we learned about the "Watchmaker" theory in biology class.

It was in the chapter that talked about the various theories that people previously believed about how life on earth developed. Also in that chapter was the belief some people had about snakes and worms. Some actually thought that they came from horse hairs that fell into ponds and streams.

Good for the Vatican. If you start with a belief you can't turn it into science, because you start with what cannot be directly observed or measured.

[Goblinmonger]

7. I hate that analogy

Though I will freely admit that I feel most people are not intelligent enough to handle an extended metaphor.

The problem that I have with the watchmaker analogy is that it skips SO MANY other factors. What if I saw a watch in the forest and there were several other larger watches running around it taking care of it. Then it would be reasonable to assume it came from them. I mean, seriously, how ignorant do you have to be to fall for an analogy when the "creator" of that analogy takes something that is CLEARLY manmade and uses it as a representative for something in nature.

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. Dawkins is not the sharpest individual, as he once implicitly

conceded, himself, I believe in a Sunday newspaper supplement. He succeeded in his career through hard work, application, dedication, rather than an egregious intellect.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Why bring Dawkins into it?

The 'watchmaker' analogy was originated by William Paley, in the 18th century.

[Joe Chi Minh]

30. Somebody else did, because Dawkins wrote a book

about a blind watchmaker, I think.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. No, you brought Dawkins into it

You were the first to mention him. Someone else talked about learning about the 'watchmaker' argument in the 60s - before Dawkins wrote any book. They were thus clearly referring to the argument that life was too complex not to have a designer - Paley's watchmaker argument, of which 'Intelligent Design' is the modern form.

[Joe Chi Minh]

38. My apologies. I wasn't aware of the origin of the watchmaker

metaphor, thinking it was Dawkin's.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bill McBlueState]

6. who's doing that?

numb-skulls obsessed with trying to disprove the existence of God, adduce science as their rationale

Like whom? Can you tell us who's trying to do this? I hear there's a chemist named Professor Strawman who is obsessed with using science to disprove the existence of gods, but I'm not too familiar with his work.

[Goblinmonger]

8. You are forgetting to give credit to his GTA

John "Red" McHerring. From what I understand, he is pretty pivotal in that work, too.

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. It's anecdotal - and my anecdote, so I can't help you there.

But I seem to see an endless stream of posts on here ridiculing creationism/intelligent design, as unscientific!

Strangely enough, though, I've just seen a hilarious episode of Boston Legal here, in which one of the more serious sub-episodes concerned a court case, in which one of their legal teams was defending a man (in a heavily blue State) who had taught intelligent design in a science class, and was being sued for it.

Summing up, the judge expressed his horror of fundamentalists interfering with the teaching of science in schools, but finally ruled in favour of the teacher, at least partly because he was just as appalled by the militant secularists who were trying to ban such features of the nation's historic national culture as Christmas.

Back at their offices, the attorney played by Candice Bergen conceded to her colleague that she believed in a higher being, but concluded the instalment by saying, "But God forbid that the fundamentalists should be given a free hand in the matter (not verbatim). The message (one I don't have problem with at all), is that the two enemies of good sense are the militant secularists and the fundies.

[trotsky]

13. "Militant secularism"

is, I would argue, the only thing that will keep religions from destroying each other.

[Goblinmonger]

14. So much wrong

I don't know where to start.

I'll just go with this. If "militant secularists" are as you define them, then count me in. How nice that you can choose from the cafeteria of our nation's historic culture of Christianity and just focus on the "banning of Christmas." Why don't you jump on the bandwagon of the other little beauties that Christianity gave to this nation's historic national culture like: burning/hanging witches and genocide of the Native Americans just to name a couple.

It is also (sorry, had to go for two once I started typing) funny that you indicate that the fundies and these "militant secularists" are both equal enemies of good sense. I assume that you mean good sense to be "mainstream" people like you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. Did Christ teach that "witches" should be hanged? No.

Did he advocate genocide? No. So, why would I expand my focus to include them? I'm making the case for theism, not the sanity, still less the enlightened nature of Man.

Throw in your lot with the militant secularists? Enjoy yourself.

"It is also (sorry, had to go for two once I started typing) funny that you indicate that the fundies and these "militant secularists" are both equal enemies of good sense. I assume that you mean good sense to be "mainstream" people like you".

You got it.

Einstein's proof that the speed of light is absolute ties in perfectly with the Vedantist precept, indeed description, of God as "the One without a second". If that is too abstruse for them, on the other hand, the evidence of intelligent design is all around us; but that is too simple for them. They have to have something prosaic, on the Newtonian mechanistic level, in between, that they can "get a handle on".

[lazarus]

15. here's another one

Creationism/"intelligent design" are unscientific.

"God did it" isn't a scientific explanation.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. "God did it" isn't a scientific explanation. Precisely!

That is precisely the point the Vatican scientists made. Science is a peculiarly narrow method of investigation, yet the screening out of extraneous facts, seems to have been the very key to its phenomenal progress. As John Paul II stated, and the RC Church teaches, Science, like other disciplines, has its own proper canons.

In the past, I've maintained that the scientific method is no more than the application of common-sense testing. However, that may be overstating it, since reductionism is not normally common sense in other fields of knowledge/investigation, which tend to have many more, as well as more abstruse, dimensions which may need to be taken into account.

[salvorhardin]

17. We ridicule creationism and ID as unscientific because they ARE!

ID and creationism ARE unscientific.

Name one assertion of ID or creationism that is falsifiable.

Name one assertion of ID or creationism that can be verified by experiment, much less replicated.

What knowledge have we garnered from ID or creationism that can be used to make predictions about the natural world?

I don't care if you or anyone believes in ID or creationism. I think they're silly, but I don't care if you believe in them. However, they are not scientific hypotheses. They are theological positions.

Would you think it a good idea if Richard Dawkins and other scientists were trying to get legislation passed that would allow them to come to your child's sunday school and teach about evolution and astronomy (as it pertains to very distant objects)? No. Of course you wouldn't. And neither should ID and creationism be in the science classroom.

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. No argument from me. You state the case well.

[salvorhardin]

20. OK.

Then I have to admit to being confused about your point. You seem to be trying to say that secularism is bad somehow. I might be entirely misreading your posts, so if I am, excuse me.

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. Intrinsically, secularism has no more to do with science than

religion has. To think otherwise is to subscribe to an extreme version of the Pathetic Fallacy. Both science and religion are, proximately, man-made constructs. Inanimate objects, the principles of their nature and investigation have no relevance to religion, in much the same way as an automobile has no intrinsic relevance to butterfly collecting. Although there is a spiritual dimension imbuing all of creation, Christians are not animists. We don't believe a fly possesses a soul, at least in a way bearing a recognisable resemblance to a human soul.

Yes, I do think secularism is bad, but its attempts to take credit for all matters scientific, indeed all meaningful knowledge, are just one of many examples of ways in which its acolytes mislead each other and zealously seek to mislead others. The most innovative scientific thinkers have almost all been passionate theists, if not Christians; to name a few, Galileo, Newton, Pascal, Einstein (though atheists dispute it. In fact, he was obsessed with the intelligent design of the universe, to the point that Bohr reproached him for "bringing God into everything") and that widely-admired theology graduate, Darwin. What sort of training in scientific thinking do you think that gave him? What it gave him was the independence of mind, the honesty, to acknowledge what he saw and attest to it, in the teeth of the most rabid hostility. Or rather the latter would have drawn him to the study of theology. A desire to understand the world, in the broadest sense. Knowledge for its own sake, not to provide a lever of power. Children are the only true intellectuals, for the same reason.

But much more importantly, militant secularists want to suppress Christianity in national life, while offering no code of ethics to replace it, still less a shared one. It puzzles me no end that they seem unable to see that it is a recipe for anomie and chaos. Far worse than even the vile simulacrum of religion peddled by the far right. And that is saying something. Better that vice pay some tribute to virtue, than none at all.

As we have seen from some informative posts here, the far right seems to predispose a disproportionate number of its powerful movers and shakers to pedophilia. However, in the UK, we have had a number of cases of primary-school children raping, sodomising and even killing, which seem to me to be a relatively new phenomenon.

In the case of the murder of little Jamie Bolger, the young lads, not a whole lot older, primary-school children - used to watch hard-core pornographic videos on their parents' videos.

In America, I believe you have had an epidemic of women ripping babies out of other women's wombs. Utterly bizarre, until you realise it is part of the secularist culture of entitlement, placing the right to the gratification of a person's sense of entitlement in just about every area, above all else. Not unrelated by any means to secular scientists' claim to the right to clone, particularly human beings. The kind of "liberalism" favoured by many Democrats here, but fortunately for America, still not by the majority in the country, I think. Once the Creator is lost sight of, the creature is soon lost sight of, too. It's late so must finish.

[salvorhardin]

22. OK. I understand.

You're a theocrat. You're free to believe as you wish. That's not the country I want to live in and not the country envisioned by Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, or Paine though. And you can be assured that I and many others will fight you no matter what it takes to prevent a return to a 12th C. social order. I'm done with you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. It's amazing that you think secularism means "no code of ethics"

Try looking at some constitutions, or laws.

Your description of ripping foetuses out of wombs as "part of the secularist culture of entitlement" is one of the most bizarre ideas I've ever seen on DU. It's not part of any current culture, and if it ever was, I'm sure we'd all describe it as barbaric. The act is that of a profoundly sick person. But how can you possibly say it's something to do with 'entitlement'? And yes, it is completely unrelated to cloning. Your claim of a connection is meaningless twaddle.

It puzzles me no end that they seem unable to see that it is a recipe for anomie and chaos. Far worse than even the vile simulacrum of religion peddled by the far right. And that is saying something. Better that vice pay some tribute to virtue, than none at all.

Are you saying that atheists should pretend to have a religion, otherwise we might encourage others to think that there may be no gods? Personally I do think this is how many religions did get started - to encourage people to accept arbitrary authority. Those arbitrary authorities have done the world some good, and some bad. But do you really think it's better for people to lie for their entire lives about what they think is the basis of reality? Should we try and convert Christians to our newly made-up religion, to make it extra convincing? Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster something you'd like us to take seriously?

[Joe Chi Minh]

29. Strange. I've read in our newspapers of a few cases

of American women having a foetus they are bearing ripped from their womb. How do you explain the occurrence of these new acts of barbarism, not by diabolical conquering armies, but by "ordinary" women.

And how would you like to find that you were born as a clone and had no mother or father or family? Maybe, maybe, no demoniac scientismificists are currently working to do that now, just the foetuses for spare parts, but it's always the thin end of the wedge.

One thing, though, that would sweep away the last objection to it, is if Big Business ever thinks it can turn a dollar from it. And are you going to be able to stop them? They're currently poisoning the planet with GM crops, but fortunately, progress seems to have been made, and Monsanto are currently having difficulties. In fact, they've asked the Vatican for their imprimatur!

"Are you saying that atheists should pretend to have a religion, otherwise we might encourage others to think that there may be no gods"

No. Not at all. As a matter of fact that was what Hitler did. Pretended that the Nazis creed was Christian for as long as he needed to gain the confidence of sufficient people in high places (who should know better in such matters, but never do) to render them powerless to stop him.

However, when a country has a national religion, from which individuals of course may and do dissent to their hearts content, its true values (in a Christian country, the values Christ preached in the Gospels) the people become unconsciously imbued with some kind of recognition of them, and even in some degree, deference to them.

Generally, the ruling classes in Christian countries, sacred and profane I'm afraid, have always had a strange take on such Gospel values, but even with that "mustard seed" of faith, the good guys were able to largely contain the growth, the spread of villainy within their own class; but now, villainy has been democratised and is constantly increasing among the ruled - while the villainy of its far-right leaders leads the charge. Hardly surprising they should say "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" The check provided by the culture of a national religious faith is no more, and laws sure aren't going to supply the deficit. I can only imagine that you people walk about with your eyes closed, or don't read the papers. You can't read the signs of the times.

As regards your question concerning hypocrisy, all human beings are hypocrites in some degree, only Christ being perfect; so, yes, even the hypocritical religious faith of defectible human beings is better than nothing. I dare say the Germans found that out, once Hitler's suppression of Christianity took place; while he fantasised with New Age stuff - like Reagan, Thatcher and Cherie Blair (who however is Catholic).

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. I did give my explanation, if you'd bother to read my post

I said "The act is that of a profoundly sick person". The perpetrators are mentally sick. You, instead, with no evidence or argument whatsoever, try to blame it on the "secularist culture of entitlement". You makes it sound as if we all feel a natural urge to mutilate someone else, and your idea of Christianity is the only thing that holds us back from it. If that's what you think a natural human feeling is, then you don't understand other humans.

You keep on talking about clones, for no apparent reason. This is a thread about intelligent design, and the Catholic church's rejection of it as science. Why do you have an obsession with clones?

I'm glad you understand that it's far better for secularists to openly state their opinions than for them to follow a religion they don't believe in. I hoped this meant you understood your statement, that secularism is "far worse than even the vile simulacrum of religion peddled by the far right", was wrong, and insulting to atheists and agnostics. But then you repeat "even the hypocritical religious faith of defectible human beings is better than nothing" ,and I wonder if you have ever managed in your life to understand a word uttered by anyone who wasn't an obsessive Christian. Human beings have ethics - some are innate, such as caring for family and friends. Some develop from societies, such as keeping retaliation in proportion when in dispute with others. Look at laws and you will see these ethics expressed. They do not require religions. Please look at how human beings actually behave, and you'll realise that it doesn't take a holy book for a society to have ethics.

[Joe Chi Minh]

39. "You keep on talking about clones, for no apparent reason.

This is a thread about intelligent design, and the Catholic church's rejection of it as science. Why do you have an obsession with clones?

The reason is not complicated in any way. The thread header was a simple misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's position regarding Intelligent Design. However, the people who reject Intelligent Design under any discipline, I believe, do so because they resent the idea that human beings are made to certain specifications. Only a strongly negative and emotional reaction could have allowed them to buy into such manifest nonsense, when the evidence to the contrary is all around us.

Would you ignore the questions on an examination paper, preferring to rely on automatic writing, the first thing that came into your head? No. You'd want to now the design, the plan, the questions to be answered emanating from the mind of the person who set the exam. What he/sh would expect by way of answers.

And the constitution and ongoing preservation of the universe - just ASSUMING for a moment a Creator - would have required that he/she/it had somewhat better intellectual powers than even the most brilliant academic, who, himself, set the most difficult exams - never mind the most brilliant students sitting such exams.

Once people reject the notion that they were custom-built, why would human beings, some of whom are very evil, some somewhat evil, and all of us prone to evil from time to time - however relatively innocuous, feel constrained to behave in socially responsible/helpful ways at all. The better ones might well feel driven by conscience to try to be good and kind and compassionate and helpful to others. But not the others. Why should they? I mean on what rationale?

The desire to clone human beings, as expressed by at least one scientist, is precisely one such example of where the sense that we are not subject to any moral laws can lead. I mentioned earlier the matter of a poor soul cloned on the whim of an evil scientist, appearing in the world without a mother, father or family, even for a few hours. Not even the memory of the warmth of a human womb. If that doesn't worry you, I don't know what to say.

Regarding your last paragraph, atheist you may be, but I can't see how you can be a materialist.

"Look at laws and you will see these ethics expressed. They do not require religions".

When laws were first codified, every society, every human being believed in a God. Right and wrong were associated however fearfully with a divine Creator. It is only our mad Eastern society in which atheism is rife.

I don't now why you associate agnosticism with atheism. They could not be further apart. Better to be an honest searcher than a feckless herd-following believer. Nobody was a more vehemently anti-Catholic agnostic than I was, as a teenager, yet, looking back, I am sure that my previous sentence nevertheless held good.

I see the man in Christ's description of the last Judgment (perhaps mistakenly), whom he welcomed into Heaven at his Father's right hand, though the latter claimed not to know him, as an agnostic, rather than an atheist. While it is clear that many who were formally very religious were and are in fact atheists - because they do not recognize love (other than in its most self-centered form) or act upon it.

As Christians, we should at least begin by looking upon everyone we meet as "another Christ", and feel sorrow if it is clear that they are going to miss their mark, as of course does happen. As Solzhenitsyn pointed out in his "Gulag Archipelago", when a person reaches a certain depth of depravity/evil, the statistical possibility of his genuine conversion is meaninglessly minute. Judas' sorrow after betraying Christ, would have been from self-pity at the enormity of his actions. It seems noteworthy to me that it is, as far as I know, the only instance of Jesus being resigned to the damnation of an individual.

Do you think that the "innate" ethics that you refer to, such as caring for family and friends - what we call the natural virtues - came about by the same mysterious processes as the physical universe? Incidentally, although we teach that all our righteousness, (such as it may be) is by the grace of God and not our own intrinsic excellence, Christians always have to fight against the idea that maybe we have become pretty good people. Christianity is not about being converted, once and for all, as the fundies believe. Because of our defectible nature, we need to be converted again every day. As long as we live we are faced with choices between good and evil every waking hour.

As regards the natural virtues, which you referred to, they will never be proof against social strife, wars, etc. One of the key precepts that Jesus taught was that we must look beyond our own nuclear families, however dear they are to us. And I think that makes sense, don't you? It is where so many Republicans fall down; where their faith is too immature and callow. Christianity was never intended to be just an accessory, an easy add-on feature, however apparently ornamental - society stopping at our front door.

[trotsky]

40. A question for you.

If someone were able to prove to you that gods were false and creations by humans, would you IMMEDIATELY go out and start stealing and killing?

[Joe Chi Minh]

41. I can confidently say, "NOT IMMEDIATELY", but is that so

encouraging? I can't discount the possibility that as our society got even worse, and then worse and worse - as it would - that I would not sink into some measure of cynicism. Womanizing would certainly be a very attractive option (even though I can hardly totter down the road! What would I do without my heart tablets? Long gone, I'm afraid), but I dare say I'd soon commit suicide when I saw the misery it caused all round.

Maybe I'd start coveting new Mercedes, etc, and steal one if I thought I could get away with it. Only my faith has preserved my Socialist ardor and yearning for universal economic justice - which will one day lead to peace. During our forties, for a while, the temptations to cynicism becomes quite strong.

Which raises the question of conscience. Where did that come from? Could I simply discard it with my new-found atheism? Or even with difficulty?

I had a religious experience some decades ago, and my immediate reaction was one of utter horror; I was overwhelmed by the keenness of the sense of the innocent suffering that I felt, of people all over the world, and of anger at the institutional Church.

I didn't stop believing in God at all, and still said the psalms every day, but it soon became borne in upon me by God that that had not been his purpose. In fact, whether I understood it or not, I was still a part of his Church with all its sinfulness, but indeed, I soon stopped going to Mass and I found myself running down people (not politicians who are fair game), around me, as well as the Church, and even lived in sin for a year, 18 months, 2 years. I don't know, partly I think because I have not wanted to think abut it. For me, knowing what I did regarding God's love, it was a very serious sin. That it wasn't completely deadly, in spite of that, I believe was because it wasn't simple promiscuity on my part, and never developed into it, and the horror I felt at the innocent suffering I'd felt so keenly had truly traumatized me.

So, to cut a long story short, not immediately, but I couldn't swear to what I might not do in the future, because devils are as real in their subordinate way, as God, himself, and you can be forced/driven to actions you might not consider remotely possible. So, in a way, your question is so hypothetical, it ultimately doesn't make sense even in theory. I'm not saying that from any kind of negative motivation, either. It has led to a lengthy response however kind of doubly hypothetical.

I now feel more close to the Church than ever, though for various reasons, I only go to confession now. I am still disappointed regarding aspects of the Church, but I have no doubt that it is the ark of our salvation and "will see us right" in the end. And I can see that criticising it, while it is constantly making progress in helping mankind, in spite of its shortcomings, is counter-productive. Perhaps in the not too distant future. I hope to attend Mass again, too.

[trotsky]

42. *shudder*

You scare me, man. By all means, PLEASE keep believing in your god so you can be a decent contributing member of society just like me, an atheist.

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. Well, I want to qualify my earlier post, but it won't be for your

your benefit, obviously. That's the trouble with you atheist types, you're so self-righteous. It tickles me though that you seem to imagine that your opinion of me would matter to me? To be slighted, ridiculed, sneered at by some people is a very comforting sign; just as to be admired, praised, looked up to by them would be very disturbing. But that's one example of what I mean about your self-righteousness. That would never have occurred to you, would it?

The framing of your question was to some extent, not just hypothetical but based upon a false premise, that the Christian faith is primarily a matter of credence in the existence of God, by assent of the conscious mind; and I responded to some extent on that basis. However, the allusion to the Last Judgment that I posted, was at least an attempt to put it in a fuller context.

Love is the active ingredient in all the other virtues including Faith and Hope, the other two so-called theological virtues. And from that description of the Last Judgment, it is clear that it alone is what God seeks. "Upon it hangs the whole of the Law and he Prophets."

So when you posit a lack of faith in God, you simultaneously posit a lack of love of God and one's fellow human beings, and the unique sense of moral beauty that goes with it. So, the sorry image of a decrepit old geezers going round lusting after women, as I speculated, would surely be wide of the mark. Although, on the basis of a true understanding of faith, were I to lose my faith in God, the absence of love and a sense of moral beauty would inevitably be involved, as well. And to me that, in itself would be Hell on earth.

[WhollyHeretic]

44. Do you know what "self-righteous" means?

Maybe you should check a dictionary.

The rest of your post was nothing but insults and intellectual masturbation. It might have made you feel good, but it didn't do anything for anyone else and it sure as hell didn't produce anything.

[trotsky]

45. You've just told me that your belief in a god is the only thing...

that keeps you from essentially going on a crime spree.

All these millenia of human existence, all the works of philosophers and thinkers and politicians and scientists and great leaders, and you don't think a reasonable system of human ethics can be found without anchoring it on an invisible, undetectable being? And not just any being - YOUR god and your god alone.

And you call me self-righteous. Okey dokey.

[trotsky]

26. WTF?

"...women ripping babies out of other women's wombs. Utterly bizarre, until you realise it is part of the secularist culture of entitlement"

Good grief, am I on DU or FreeRepublic?

I think it comes more from the culture of despair that Republicans and Christian theocrats have helped create, making it impossible for people to earn a living wage or get a good public education. Out of ignorance comes most evil.

Why does a "code of ethics" *have* to replace Christianity, anyway? What's wrong with our laws?

[beam me up scottie]

27. What I'd like to know

is why a theocrat would want to belong to a progressive liberal political forum in the first place.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

32. Wow, that's some religious bigotry for ya.

Christianity always presents the only true values that can bring mankind peace and happiness.

And the Inquisition, the Holocaust, witch burning, abortion clinic bombers, etc. ad nauseum are examples of what then? Wait, wait, don't tell me - those Christians weren't following *TRUE* Christian values, right?

I don't think it's appropriate to put your religion above all others when it most certainly does not have a pure and decent past, present, or indeed future when people like Pope Ratzinger are running the institutions.

[Zhade]

36. The ignorant arrogance is stunning.

Bookmarking this for the next time some whiner says "Christians never look down on atheists!"

[Zhade]

35. "no effort being made to distinguish between them."

That is, of course, a bald-faced lie.

[beam me up scottie]

37. "our mutual incomprehension seems so massive"

No, YOUR incomprehension is massive.

We understand perfectly.

People like you are trying to turn this country into a theocracy and people like me and my fellow "militant secularists" are going to make sure they don't succeed.

Your kind should just go back to living in caves and cowering in fear of everything their underdeveloped brains can't understand.

I hope people like you keep praying to their vengeful god instead of relying on science.

We will be rid of them that much quicker.

[Zhade]

31. Creationism/ID IS unscientific, and worthy of ridicule.

It starts with a premise and looks for evidence to support that premise - exactly backwards of real science. It also ignores evidence that disagrees with the premise, and tosses in unprovable, untestable subjective personal beliefs, claiming what cannot be accepted as objective evidence to be proof of the premise.

I'll happily continue to mock this archaic, ignorant nonsense, and all those arrogantly uninformed enough to defend it as "science". Those are some stupid motherfuckers, if you ask me.

Of course, they have the right to their stupidity, just as I have the right to laugh at their insane flailing attempts to prop up mysticism as "science".

I myself make no apologies for ridiculing bullshit in defense of established reality.

[Goblinmonger]

9. You did read the OP, didn't you.

This is coming from the Vatican, for fuck's sake. Something tells me that this Jesuit priest is NOT "trying to disprove the existence of God" by "adduc science as their rationale." I could be wrong. Maybe since I left the Catholic church 20 years ago things have gone a complete 180 over there, but I doubt it.

[CatBoreal]

3. Interesting tidbit about the Vatican...

They have more theoretical physicists working for them than any other organization.

[greenman3610]

10. is that true?

[salvorhardin]

25. I believe that's one of the talking points

of the New World Order/Illuminati/Bilderberger nutcases.

Not implying that CatBoreal is one of those nutcases.

I may be wrong.

[4_Legs_Good]

4. Well said!

Hopefully someone is listening!

david

[thecodewarrior]

5. if ID is real

Then we have a stupid leader elected by a stupid nation of morons.