cbsnews.com— The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.
Jan 19, 2006View in Crawl 4
Nice try, Rome. But it still doesn't make up for the diddling.For that you must save millions of lives every year worldwide by advocating the use of condoms to prevent disease. Then we're even. Death is worse than diddling and the church had thepower to prevent millions of unneccesary deaths but chose not to based on ideology over science.It's good to say the right thing, but why is it always too little too latewith these people? Sucke... I mean followers worldwide look to youfor answers before they'll look to reality/facts. Try to be responsible.And for laughs, read this:<a class="user" href="http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp">http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp</a>Don't get me wrong, this is good news with the intelligentdesign thing. It'd be hard for an organization that spends asmuch as they do on astronomy to say that intelligent designmakes sense.
berean said, "I AM a religion expert. An apologist with a Biblical studies degree and plenty of experience"rnrnWhen am I going to learn not to feed trolls? Oh well, here goes.rnrnFirstly, Berean, you are not the only person reading digg with a religious education. I have a degree in Religious Studies as well, and I can say with ABSOLUTE certainty, having studied under some of the best minds in the field, that the views you are expressing suggest you haven't a clue what you are talking about.rnrnThe "bible" is not a single work, but since you claim to have a degree in "biblical studies" I'd have assumed you already knew that. Yet you consistently talk about the bible as one work. It is a collection of works. You simply cannot make sweeping statements about the bible like:rnrn"The Bible is very obviously meant to be read literally. In fact, there's much historical, scientific, and archaeological to support it as a literal document"rnrnThere is no "it". There are a collection of documents written at different times by different people, all for different audiences and for different purposes. Some parts are meant to be read literally, like a few of the histories of the old and new testament and the apocrypha. There are also mythological works, like genesis that are meant to be read in a mythological light. That why, for instance, there are two separate creation account in genesis that don't agree on things as basic as the order of creation (C.f. Gen 1:1 vs the second account beginning on Gen 2:4). Why? Not because the bible is wrong, but because the point of the story is not to give a scientific account of creation, but rather to explain God's relationship to His creation (which both stories do equally well in different ways). Indeed, the strongest evidence that the Jews who wrote it understood this is the fact that they willingly put two differing creation accounts side-by-side. They knew they didn't agree. They also knew that wasn't the point. Such things are found throughout the mythical works of the bible. Each book, and sometimes each section of a book, within the bible needs to be considered separately.rnrnTrite, simplistic answers like those you are giving here, especially when given the imprimatur of a "Biblical Studies" degree like you seem to be trying to do only causes more harm to Christianity and gives people like me more clean-up work to do behind you as you leave confused and pissed atheists in your wake. Your comments are easily dismissed and with them people assume the base Christian claims are as easy to dismiss. The intelligent practice of religion is not easy to dismiss as foolish. You aren't doing us any favors by making it seem otherwise.rnrnIn short, your Moralistic rants aren't helping, so STFU.
I believe that the creation story is a parable of sorts, as I don't believe that Satan is a serpent. But I also believe that God can work miraculously when he wants to -- and who's to say nature itself isn't miraculous?rnrnAs a Christian, I don't have a problem with evolution: I wasn't created a perfected being -- I have to evolve spiritually. So I don't see why that couldn't be happening to everything on the physical level as well.rnrnI don't think natural selection and mutation explain enough about evolution, though. I have a suspicion that we'll eventually discover some sort of meta-DNA that guides the development of DNA over the millennia, so that we could relate the entire tree of species to a literal tree: it grows and branches out according to a pattern, but virtually random forces like wind and rain also factor in to its unique twists.rnrnWhen God acts, he's not the sole actor. When he saves people, people also save themselves. When he creates the universe, the universe also creates itself. It's like how a bird has the free will to fly wherever it chooses, or a fish can swim in any direction, but both are also guided by currents. God works like this in everything.
Wow, I haven't been the biggest fan of the Catholic Church, but I really appriciate what they're trying to do here! As well as a great number of encouraging, insightful, and understanding comments relating to this story, something I usually don't find on digg.
@nicepants@ ericvdb - "i might have gotten some of those wrong...but come on, if the bible were a movie it would get an excessive violence rating"So would many movies about other historical events. (Anyone see Saving Private Ryan?)That is true....but....i don't think spielberg, of the followers of spielberg, was instructing people that we should carry out invasions of other countries in the name of spielberg.The bible is advertised by literalists as the word of god...and a good and merciful god sure has a lot of anger and fire and the lopping off of heads, doesn't he?
Breren, my friend, Catholics do not believe that everything in the Bible is literally historically true. Catholicism accounts for 1.1 billion of the ?3billion? (not sure on the number) Christians in the world. Let's not forget the eastern rites, Greek, Russian, Antiochian... Anglicans, Episcopalians et al. are similar. Lutherans, Methodists... most main line protestants.Fundamentalists like you are in the minority. So. Stop thinking the opposite.I find it amusing that Fundies like you take everything literally except when Jesus says something like:"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52)."Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56). Jesus is just kidding apparently.At the last supper, he made an allusion to this great joke he made. Man that Jesus is hilarious.Tell Jack Chick I said "Hi."-Andrew
I spent several weeks trying to understand the science behind Intelligent Design. There is none. Specified Complexity, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics objections, improbability of certain microorganisms...they are all deeply flawed, to the point of seeming purposefully contrived. I am a very spiritual person, but after a month and a half of ingesting this mess, I began to believe that I was reading the work of liars and charlatans. I *lost* respect for these Christians after trying to understand them better.You can't argue with a man's belief, unless he believes in ID. Then you can trash him with contemptuous ease. I believe the Pope (a very smart man) sees the danger in using bulls**t theories to promote religion, when it has done QUITE well enough based on unshakeable faith.
kindrobotJan 19, 2006
Nice try, Rome. But it still doesn't make up for the diddling.For that you must save millions of lives every year worldwide by advocating the use of condoms to prevent disease. Then we're even. Death is worse than diddling and the church had thepower to prevent millions of unneccesary deaths but chose not to based on ideology over science.It's good to say the right thing, but why is it always too little too latewith these people? Sucke... I mean followers worldwide look to youfor answers before they'll look to reality/facts. Try to be responsible.And for laughs, read this:<a class="user" href="http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp">http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp</a>Don't get me wrong, this is good news with the intelligentdesign thing. It'd be hard for an organization that spends asmuch as they do on astronomy to say that intelligent designmakes sense.
caudronJan 19, 2006
berean said, "I AM a religion expert. An apologist with a Biblical studies degree and plenty of experience"rnrnWhen am I going to learn not to feed trolls? Oh well, here goes.rnrnFirstly, Berean, you are not the only person reading digg with a religious education. I have a degree in Religious Studies as well, and I can say with ABSOLUTE certainty, having studied under some of the best minds in the field, that the views you are expressing suggest you haven't a clue what you are talking about.rnrnThe "bible" is not a single work, but since you claim to have a degree in "biblical studies" I'd have assumed you already knew that. Yet you consistently talk about the bible as one work. It is a collection of works. You simply cannot make sweeping statements about the bible like:rnrn"The Bible is very obviously meant to be read literally. In fact, there's much historical, scientific, and archaeological to support it as a literal document"rnrnThere is no "it". There are a collection of documents written at different times by different people, all for different audiences and for different purposes. Some parts are meant to be read literally, like a few of the histories of the old and new testament and the apocrypha. There are also mythological works, like genesis that are meant to be read in a mythological light. That why, for instance, there are two separate creation account in genesis that don't agree on things as basic as the order of creation (C.f. Gen 1:1 vs the second account beginning on Gen 2:4). Why? Not because the bible is wrong, but because the point of the story is not to give a scientific account of creation, but rather to explain God's relationship to His creation (which both stories do equally well in different ways). Indeed, the strongest evidence that the Jews who wrote it understood this is the fact that they willingly put two differing creation accounts side-by-side. They knew they didn't agree. They also knew that wasn't the point. Such things are found throughout the mythical works of the bible. Each book, and sometimes each section of a book, within the bible needs to be considered separately.rnrnTrite, simplistic answers like those you are giving here, especially when given the imprimatur of a "Biblical Studies" degree like you seem to be trying to do only causes more harm to Christianity and gives people like me more clean-up work to do behind you as you leave confused and pissed atheists in your wake. Your comments are easily dismissed and with them people assume the base Christian claims are as easy to dismiss. The intelligent practice of religion is not easy to dismiss as foolish. You aren't doing us any favors by making it seem otherwise.rnrnIn short, your Moralistic rants aren't helping, so STFU.
alucinorJan 19, 2006
I believe that the creation story is a parable of sorts, as I don't believe that Satan is a serpent. But I also believe that God can work miraculously when he wants to -- and who's to say nature itself isn't miraculous?rnrnAs a Christian, I don't have a problem with evolution: I wasn't created a perfected being -- I have to evolve spiritually. So I don't see why that couldn't be happening to everything on the physical level as well.rnrnI don't think natural selection and mutation explain enough about evolution, though. I have a suspicion that we'll eventually discover some sort of meta-DNA that guides the development of DNA over the millennia, so that we could relate the entire tree of species to a literal tree: it grows and branches out according to a pattern, but virtually random forces like wind and rain also factor in to its unique twists.rnrnWhen God acts, he's not the sole actor. When he saves people, people also save themselves. When he creates the universe, the universe also creates itself. It's like how a bird has the free will to fly wherever it chooses, or a fish can swim in any direction, but both are also guided by currents. God works like this in everything.
sandwichpantsJan 19, 2006
Wow, I haven't been the biggest fan of the Catholic Church, but I really appriciate what they're trying to do here! As well as a great number of encouraging, insightful, and understanding comments relating to this story, something I usually don't find on digg.
ericvdbJan 19, 2006
@nicepants@ ericvdb - "i might have gotten some of those wrong...but come on, if the bible were a movie it would get an excessive violence rating"So would many movies about other historical events. (Anyone see Saving Private Ryan?)That is true....but....i don't think spielberg, of the followers of spielberg, was instructing people that we should carry out invasions of other countries in the name of spielberg.The bible is advertised by literalists as the word of god...and a good and merciful god sure has a lot of anger and fire and the lopping off of heads, doesn't he?
v3xt0rJan 19, 2006
why don't we teach children the truth about religion... like how it has been used as a tool to control society for thousands of years now.
hypnochickenJan 19, 2006
Breren, my friend, Catholics do not believe that everything in the Bible is literally historically true. Catholicism accounts for 1.1 billion of the ?3billion? (not sure on the number) Christians in the world. Let's not forget the eastern rites, Greek, Russian, Antiochian... Anglicans, Episcopalians et al. are similar. Lutherans, Methodists... most main line protestants.Fundamentalists like you are in the minority. So. Stop thinking the opposite.I find it amusing that Fundies like you take everything literally except when Jesus says something like:"‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52)."Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56). Jesus is just kidding apparently.At the last supper, he made an allusion to this great joke he made. Man that Jesus is hilarious.Tell Jack Chick I said "Hi."-Andrew
darkmothJan 20, 2006
I spent several weeks trying to understand the science behind Intelligent Design. There is none. Specified Complexity, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics objections, improbability of certain microorganisms...they are all deeply flawed, to the point of seeming purposefully contrived. I am a very spiritual person, but after a month and a half of ingesting this mess, I began to believe that I was reading the work of liars and charlatans. I *lost* respect for these Christians after trying to understand them better.You can't argue with a man's belief, unless he believes in ID. Then you can trash him with contemptuous ease. I believe the Pope (a very smart man) sees the danger in using bulls**t theories to promote religion, when it has done QUITE well enough based on unshakeable faith.