Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vatican Rejects Intelligent Design?

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the tell-that-to-kansas dept.

Science 2345

typobox43 writes "A Vatican representative has expressed a defense of the theory of evolution, stating that it is "perfectly compatible" with the Genesis story of creation. "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator"." Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down. The Orthodox rabbis I've spoken find it amazingly amusing that people take the creation story as literal truth, rather then a story about YHWH's power.

cancel ×

2345 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Talk to those that wrote it down? (4, Insightful)

TurdTapper (608491) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970299)

Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down.

How exactly is that going to happen? Since this was all written down thousands of years ago, how is someone going to talk to those rabbis? WABAC perhaps?

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down? (2, Funny)

tloh (451585) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970363)

dude, That was sarcasm leaving a message on your answering machine.

I know, use the PET PSYCHIC!!! (5, Funny)

StressGuy (472374) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970366)

oh wait...you said Rabbi's

nevermind

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down? (2, Insightful)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970399)

How exactly is that going to happen? Since this was all written down thousands of years ago, how is someone going to talk to those rabbis? WABAC perhaps?

If I recall corectly, the Pentateuch was writen by Moses as dictated to him by God. This includes Genesis. The great flood is supposed to have happened around 2,200 BC from what I can find, so year, we'd need a WABAC to ask him. Or maybe a phone booth.

A little offtopic (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970486)

I was reminded of a joke, but I can't seem to find it online (googled a bit around). It was about the conversation between Abraham and God about how to explain Genesis. Abraham wanted to write down the whole history since the Big Bang, but God insisted that The Book would become too big and that they should limit themselves to 7 days.

Anybody got a link? I got a good laugh out of that story.

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down? (5, Funny)

aurelian (551052) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970403)

How exactly is that going to happen? Since this was all written down thousands of years ago, how is someone going to talk to those rabbis? WABAC perhaps?

well, compared with the people/beings they usually communicate with, surely it would be easy to talk to someone who did actually exist once?

Re:Talk to those that wrote it down? (4, Informative)

simon_hibbs2 (792812) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970484)

And of course the Rabinical movement didn't emerge untill after the destruction of the temple in 79 AD. Before that Judaism had a priesthood (plus the Pharisees, precursors of the Rabbis). But I'll stop now before your eyes glaze over.

Attack the messenger (please) (5, Insightful)

MoxCamel (20484) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970302)

Dear Scientific and (non-fundamentalist) Religious community,

Normally I would espouse a policy of "attacking the message, not the messenger." But in the case of ID, the problem is the messenger. Intelligent Design proponents no more believe in their so-called theory than any other critically thinking human. ID is simply fundamentalist's latest attempt into having evolution taught in highschool science classes. They have been knocked back time and time again on this issue, and now are trying to beat science at its own game. It doesn't even have to be a good or sound "theory," so long as they can repeat the mantra that it is a theory, long and loud enough for it to stick.

As long as we (including the Vatican) formulate our arguments on ID as a theory, even to debunk it, the fundamentalists maintain their foothold. In this case, we need to attack the messenger, not the message. ID is political propoganda, nothing more. To address it as anything else is to give undue power to its proponents.

(oh, and this story does not belong in the Science category)

Mox

Re:Attack the messenger (please) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970340)

Besides, the Bible can't be taken at literal value, specifically because so many things we know for fact contradict it. We even know that the tower of Babel still stands tall [imageshack.us] .

Re:Attack the messenger (please) (1)

Burgerman851 (929182) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970463)

Curious; you have yet to name one fact that contradicts the Bible. Do you have evidence that the Tower still stands? If so, where in the Bible does it say that it doesn't?

Re:Attack the messenger (please) (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970380)

The problem, to put it bluntly, is one of PR. If we go after ID'ers personally (which normally I'd be all in favor of, because they're jackasses) then they'll scream "persecution," and that works very well. Maintaining an aura of dignified debate unfortunately gives the false impression that ID is worthy of either dignity or debate (all it's really worthy of is laughing dismissal, a la astrology or flat-Earthism, of course) but looks better in the press.

Note that the ID'ers aren't really bothering to challenge evolution scientifically any more, because all their dumb arguments were debunked long ago. Instead they're working through the court of public opinion. Like it or not, the defenders of science have to do the same.

Re:Attack the messenger (please) (5, Funny)

BLAG-blast (302533) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970493)

If we go after ID'ers personally (which normally I'd be all in favor of, because they're jackasses) then they'll scream "persecution,"M=

So what, they should be used to it. Bring me some lions!

Not ...... exactly. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970401)

#1. Show how ID is not scientific because it cannot be falsified.

#2. Because of #1, the people who try to push ID as an "alternative" "scientific theory" should be identified as fundamentalists intent upon using the classrooms to push their own religious beliefs upon students.

There's nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist and believing in ID.

There is a LOT wrong with trying to use the classroom to indoctrinate students with those fundamentalist beliefs.

Re:Not ...... exactly. (2, Interesting)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970497)

So I'm curious - how could evolution be falsified?

Note: I'm not a fundamentalist/IDer or anything. I dont' have any trouble with the theory of evolution: I'm just not an expert on evolution.

Re:Attack the messenger (please) (3, Interesting)

VolciMaster (821873) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970420)

Many ID proponents (myself among them) do not throw out the baby of evolution with the bathwater of origins. God's having made the universe (ie, the Intelligent Design) does allow (and perhaps even demand) some evolution to occur. Repeatedly in the creation account God tells His creation to 'reproduce after their kind'. He tells Man (a special creation that did not come from 'lower' beings) to 'be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth'. He also tells Adam that he is in charge of the brids of the sky and beasts of the ground.

A great deal of man's dominion over nature has been shown in selective breeding. Now that we can experiement with genertic engineering (on a far more fine-grained scale than breeding alone allows), we have the opportunity to see all sorts of new variations of exiting plants and animals.

What evolution can not speak to, without getting into philosophy, is the actual origins of life. Eventually in the evolutionary timeline, yuo get back to a point where the question of 'where did the matter come from' pops up, and evolution comes alogn and says that matter is eternal: we've been in an unending cycle of compression and expansion of matter for eternity, and this time around humans popped up to figure it out.

What the Biblical creation account gives as the answer to that question is not that matter is eternal, but that there is a supreme being who is eternal, and He decided to make the world for His pleasure.

Intelligent Design is an alternative to the origins of life, not the continuing processes since that have shaped our world.

Re:Attack the messenger (please) (-1, Troll)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970481)

Intelligent Design is an alternative to the origins of life, not the continuing processes since that have shaped our world.

There's a word for this statement ... hold on, it's on the tip of my tongue ...

Oh yeah. It's called a "lie."

The fact is that ID makes specific claims about the process of evolution, not simply about the origin of life, and that those claims have been thoroughly debunked, but the ID'ers continue to push them anyway. Which would be fine, if they were just another loony cult pushing their loony ideas to willing loons -- but not when they try to interfere with everyone's science education.

Have it your way then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970303)

And I reject the Vatican. :-)

Thanks (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970311)

Thank God for rejecting Intelligent Design!

Re:Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970334)

Indeed, let us give thanks for its creation of evolution. I wonder how many ideas were rejected before god came upon this one?

As seen on TV (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970316)

"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -Adam from MythBusters.

A few points (3, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970317)

1. Hemos, I find your sarcasm disappointing. There are quite a few factions when it comes to different religions, and you've just compared two related, yet completely different religions to one another. i.e. It's about the same as if you mentioned that Chrisitians are bemused by Mormons. The two religions don't think of one another as "correct" even though one builds on the other. The only difference is that the Jewish and Christian faiths tend to be much more amicable toward one another.

2. The Vatican embraced the evolutionary theory several years ago under Pope John Paul III. Opponents like to point out that the Vatican also accepted a geocentric view of the Universe. As a result, only devote Catholics take the Vatican seriously on matters of science.

Amusingly, quite a bit of science in history was done by priests and other church members. However, the Vatican regularly declared heresy against anyone who challenged the accepted "facts" of the Universe. Galileo is often cited as an example, but that was partly his own fault. He used satire to insult the pope (a good friend of his) and the pope was forced to respond. Galileo should have counted himself lucky to only get house arrest.

3. If you're going to mention Yahweh (aka YHWH, aka Jehovah, aka God of Israel) in proper Jewish context, you need to mark out some of the letters as a sign of respect. e.g. "Y-WH" or "G-d"

4. Save your flames. This is intended as an informational post only, and I probably won't respond to any replies. Don't like it? Too bad. Find some objectivity.

Re:A few points (5, Informative)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970368)

Quick points:
1.) You mean JP II (there is no JPIII, yet).
2.) This claim comes from up top, so its basically the view of the vatican unless Pope Benedict contradicts it
2.5) JPII pardoned Galileo

(Yes, I'm registered member of the Catholic faith)

Re:A few points (2, Interesting)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970454)

Also, I would add that while Hemos is correct that non-literal interpretations of Genesis have been widely (if not universally) accepted in Judaism for thousands of years, his overall understanding of Jewish theology as expressed here is so head-spinningly mistaken that I'd advise him to pick less public opportunities to hold forth on it.

Re:A few points (3, Informative)

brilinux (255400) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970461)

Amen. And I should point out that it was a Jesuit who came up with the Big Bang...

(I am too)

Re:A few points (2, Informative)

Nick of NSTime (597712) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970373)

The "mark out" (i.e., G-d) is not a sign of respect so much as it is an observance of a mitzvah. Specifically, the mitzvah that tells us to not take G-d's name in vain.

Re:A few points (2, Funny)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970398)

Mod the goddamn parent up!

Re:A few points (1)

Manchot (847225) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970430)

Amusingly, quite a bit of science in history was done by priests and other church members.

For a nice example of this, look up Georges Lemaitre [wikipedia.org] , also known as Father Georges Lemaitre. His claim to fame is that he created the "hypothesis of the primeval atom," now known as the Big Bang theory.

Re:A few points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970434)

I think you meant Pope John Paul II...not III.

Unless there's a new pope or something.

Re:A few points (1)

frankie (91710) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970441)

RCC embraced scientific evidence MUCH longer ago than JP2. Both of my parents were taught evolution in 1950s Catholic schools. John Paul II merely took it one step further and officially declared that evolution is not just the most likely theory, but about as close to guaranteed fact as anything can be in this imperfect world of ours. He also finally pardoned Galileo, IIRC.

Roman Catholicism has many Many MANY flaws, most of which we all know quite well, but I.D.-iocy in the classroom is not one of them.

Wh-t? (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970444)

Actually, YHWH already has some letters struck out, specifically the vowels. In Hebrew it's spelled yod-hay-vav-hay; YHWH is a rough English transliteration. Since the vowels are missing nobody can say how it's pronounced. In fact it's usually pronounced "Adonai", which is a different name entirely.

I've never known any observant Jews to drop a letter from YHWH, but observant Jews of my acquantiance usually write it as G-d when they write it in English.

Re:A few points (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970469)

I was under the impression YHWH was just his name nothing "respectful". You just weren't ment to say it. If I'm wrong please tell me. I'm always intrested in learning more on mythological things and gods etc.

Re:A few points (5, Informative)

the_ed_dawg (596318) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970471)

However, the Vatican regularly declared heresy against anyone who challenged the accepted "facts" of the Universe.
I have a friend at a Catholic seminary right now. He's told me that they actually teach some watered-down versions of some really difficult sciences, so priests can avoid a lot of the mistakes that the church has made in the past. He actually had an introductory course in quantum mechanics!

On the whole, a good parent post. No flames required. :)

Re:A few points (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970482)

Good troll, sir!

It's about the same as if you mentioned that Chrisitians are bemused by Mormons. The two religions don't think of one another as "correct" even though one builds on the other. The only difference is that the Jewish and Christian faiths tend to be much more amicable toward one another.
All the Chrisitians I've ever met are completely friendly with everybody of every other religious domination, inasmuch as no "Chrisitians" can be said to exist.

The Vatican embraced the evolutionary theory several years ago under Pope John Paul III.
Yes, but "the new pope [uncyclopedia.org] has indicated that he wishes to put the Catholic Church back onto a more conservative footing. He has pledged to allow celibate men and women to become priests (rather than just married men and women, under current practice) and to add abstinence to the list of permitted birth control methods." I'm sure creationism isn't far from the top of his agenda!

However, the Vatican regularly declared heresy against anyone who challenged the accepted "facts" of the Universe. Galileo is often cited as an example, but that was partly his own fault. He used satire to insult the pope (a good friend of his) and the pope was forced to respond. Galileo should have counted himself lucky to only get house arrest.
For the first time in my brief life I have seen a summary of Galileo's life more divorced from reality than Brecht's (brilliant) fictionalization [culturevulture.net] . Good job, sir.

3. If you're going to mention Yahweh (aka YHWH, aka Jehovah, aka God of Israel) in proper Jewish context, you need to mark out some of the letters as a sign of respect. e.g. "Y-WH" or "G-d"
I think you know the rule but don't understand it. See, whenever you write down the name of God, you can't erase it. I had to open another Slashdot window just to read the comments -- and now I can't close this one either. Goddamnit. Bastard never should've penned [slashdot.org] the Torah in the first place!

Re:A few points (1)

Fallus Shempus (793462) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970487)

1. Considering Genisis is a Jewish text I think it is perfectly fair to get a Rabbi's viewpoint on this.

2. a. It was John Paul II
b. They do not still hold with the geocentic view of the universe; they also believed the earth was flat once.
c. Only an idiot discounts another persons point of view because of who they are.

3. Is this like Life of Brian "All I sayed was That meal was good enough fo Jehovah"

4. My right to reply; not a flame, objective criticism.

I don't see the big deal behind intelligent design (0, Flamebait)

InsideTheAsylum (836659) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970318)

I'm not a devout religious person, but I believe in a God and that he(yes, he), had a hand in creating the universe and guiding progress along. I don't have anything against evolution nor intelligent design and I don't see why other people like that. I don't see why the two theories can't be merged. *shrug*

Re:I don't see the big deal behind intelligent des (2, Interesting)

MankyD (567984) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970372)

[blockquote][i]I don't see why the two theories can't be merged. *shrug*[/i][/blockquote] If someone wants to believe in ID, by all means, that is your choice. However, the reason the scientific community is reticent to "merge" the two is that their is no scientific fact or observation supporting ID. It is a tautology, stating that there' must be a Designer because the world can't exist without one. That's just bad science.

Re:I don't see the big deal behind intelligent des (4, Funny)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970432)

[blockquote][i]I don't see why the two theories can't be merged. *shrug*[/i][/blockquote] If someone wants to believe in ID, by all means, that is your choice. However, the reason the scientific community is reticent to "merge" the two is that their is no scientific fact or observation supporting ID. It is a tautology, stating that there' must be a Designer because the world can't exist without one. That's just bad science.

Theories can't be merged because evolution uses slashot forum system and ID uses UBB forum system. Posts are incompatbile with each other.

Re:I don't see the big deal behind intelligent des (5, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970466)

It's not a tautology. It's actually a fallacy. Guess which one? ;)

It's also open to an infinite regression, which, just as in coding, is a sure sign that there is something wrong with your logic.

Re:I don't see the big deal behind intelligent des (0, Flamebait)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970414)

Tut. Evolution is a scientific theory. Religion _isn't_ a theory - it is utter fantasy like Father Christmas or Lord of the rings.

If religion did have any basis on fact, then we would have only one religion - except we don't - all we have is religion[s] trying to kill the other religion[s] off - WAR.

The sooner religion is dropped from mainstream and moved to a pigeon hole like star trek fans (et al), the World would be a better place.

Re:I don't see the big deal behind intelligent des (2, Insightful)

Crosma (798939) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970416)

So... you're saying that evolution should contain references to God to appease people who believe in Intelligent Design? You cannot be serious. ID is a tool created by ignorant fundamentalists to stop the advance of science. Its supporters can't stand that science is replacing superstition, so they're trying to do something about it.

Re:I don't see the big deal behind intelligent des (1)

geekwithsoul (860466) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970446)

Because evolution is *science* and the belief in a creator of the world/universe/your belly button is *faith*

Science offers theories that are testable and match the facts available. Faith offers beliefs that are not only untestable, but that are not in the least effected by not having facts available to match it up.

The "debate" about evolution vs. ID is stupid on the face of it. It would be like saying astronomers and astrologists need to find some common ground.

Re:I don't see the big deal behind intelligent des (0, Troll)

flyinwhitey (928430) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970448)

"I don't see why the two theories can't be merged"

Well, let me try to illustrate my perspective.

If you were to make the following statement in mixed company

"I believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster and that he(yes, he), had a hand in creating the universe"

it would not be taken seriously. Chances are your faculties would be privately questioned, and it could be seen as a sign of a mental disorder.

Now what you said was

"I believe in a God and that he(yes, he), had a hand in creating the universe"

Somehow, your statement is acceptable. The reality is, your statement is just as ridiculous.

So to answer your question, the reason the theories can't be merged is because people like you believe in a fairy tale, and attempt to portray it as fact.

How many times does this have to be repeated? (2, Insightful)

karzan (132637) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970453)

There is nothing wrong with believing that a higher power, an intelligent being, or whatever, guided the process of evolution, or designed life on Earth, etc etc. It is a perfectly legitimate religious belief.

Just as it is a perfectly legitimate religious belief that the son of God appeared on Earth and died on the cross, and a perfectly legitimate religious belief that Mohammed ascended to heaven from a rock, and a perfectly legitimate religious belief that the world is supported by a (invisible) turtle.

However none of these are scientific theories, and none of them ever can be. The reason is that they cannot be tested, they cannot be confirmed or falsified. You can always point at anything and say 'Wow, that's incredible--it must have been designed by God'. Science does not work that way. For something to be a scientific theory, it needs to be useable in scientific practice. Religious belief is not.

I do not challenge the legitimacy of your religious beliefs. But they are in a totally different domain from evolutionary theory, which is a scientific theory. Evolutionary theory must be evaluated on the basis of scientific standards (peer review, independent testing, attempts to falsify, etc), while religious ideas must be evaluated on the basis of religious standards (faith, direct spiritual experience, etc). Do not conflate the two and everyone will be happy.

Re:I don't see the big deal behind intelligent des (2, Insightful)

John Nowak (872479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970460)

Because one is a *scientific* theory, and one is a fairy tale?

Re:I don't see the big deal behind intelligent des (2, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970477)

They can't be merged because evolution is science, and intelligent design is mere philosophy, and BAD philosophy at that.

-Without having any need to hypothesize a designer, you shouldn't be doing that.
-David Hume had the last word a couple CENTURIES ago about the first cause, which is pretty much what intelligent design boils down to.
-Behe and a couple others are wrong about their thinking, and every example they give which requires a designer can be explained completely within evolutionary theory, without a designer.
-Everyone who is saying that science and religion are compatible are completely misunderstanding both religion and science. For example, Jesus said "Blessed is he who believes without seeing". That statement is the precise and exact opposite of what science is. I don't think that you could have said it more clearly. I find it remarkable that the Bible is very fuzzy on so many parts, but Jesus' statement on belief is one of the few places where the Bible is really very clear, and nobody seems to pay any attention to it! Religion and science are opposites to each other, and Jesus said so.

Re:I don't see the big deal behind intelligent des (1)

vingilot (218702) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970480)

I don't have anything against evolution nor intelligent design and I don't see why other people like that. I don't see why the two theories can't be merged.

Neither do I; however, I hardly think that the 2 should be merged though. The second to last thing I want is some religious nut trying to explain science-- the very last think I want is some scientist trying to explain God. Trying to do either is demeaning to the other.

And lets face it, ID is about God.

Jonathan

Evolution isn't a theory about the start of life. (5, Informative)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970319)

Evolution isn't a theory about the start of life. Evolution is an attempt to explain variability (and patterns of variability) among and within different species, and how that variability is systematically affected by certain factors.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, commence flame war.

Re:Evolution isn't a theory about the start of lif (3, Funny)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970423)

But OF COURSE the theory of evolution is all wrong!

Proof: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5001/5001_01.a sp [chick.com]

(make this post either +5 flamebait or -1 informative please.)

And given the Hindus, some agnostics, etc., etc. (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970321)

who are involved or receptive to the message of the Intelligent Design movement...that would make this article pertinent how?

Re:And given the Hindus, some agnostics, etc., etc (2, Informative)

uujjj (752925) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970394)

The guy who financed the ID side of the recent trial in Pennsylvania was a Catholic (the Domino's Pizza guy), as was one of their main witnesses (Michael Behe). This was a clear attempt to slap them down. Basically, the Church is telling these people to stop claiming that their religion opposes evolution.

Re:And given the Hindus, some agnostics, etc., etc (2, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970425)

that would make this article pertinent how?

I'm not sure I get your point. One of the most powerful religious organizations in the world has reiterated its commitment to separation of faith and science. I'm not a Catholic, and I consider this to be a rather important statement which will hopefully make some Christians rethink the scientific validity of "intelligent design." Since there are more than a few Christians around the globe, I'd say this has ramifications beyond the Catholic Church.

Maybe if we're lucky, some influential Hindus and agnostics will make their own similar declarations.

Re:And given the Hindus, some agnostics, etc., etc (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970452)

Their comments are about the intent behind Gen. 1. ID proponents aren't going for a model based on a certain reading of Gen. chapter 1. In other words, they are arguing against straw men.

my tagline (0, Offtopic)

MrByte420 (554317) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970323)

ssia

Re:my tagline (1)

geeper (883542) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970473)

Because your tag line represents micro-evolution, not macro-evolution which is being discussed here. You should know the difference, considering your tag line.

Am I the only person (3, Funny)

osullish (586626) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970324)

who read that as "Orthodox rabbits"??

no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970352)

*raises paw*

Re:Am I the only person (1)

Hangin10 (704729) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970359)

No, no, you are not. And we are sad. Some more from heartbreak than others.

and just because this is Slashdot, I am obligated to say ' "Orthodox rabbits" are still getting more than anyone around here.'

woo (-1, Troll)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970326)


The Vatican rejects ID? Wow, next they'll be showing "Jesus' Anal Fisting" videos in Rome.

PRAISE JEEEEZZUUUUSSS!!!

TOOI (reposted!) (5, Funny)

General Alcazar (726259) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970328)

I like to think of ID as the Theory Of Our Own Ignorance (TOOI).

Mr. Science: "Today, class, we are going to test the Theory Of Our Own Ignorance, sometimes also known as Intelligent Design, or ID. OK, who wants to volunteer?"

Johnny: "I will, Mr. Science!"

Mr. Science: "Fine, Johnny. Now, I want you to look at this bird. Do you know what kind of bird this is Johnny?"

Johnny: "Yes, sir. It is a finch."

Mr. Science: "Very good, Johnny! Now, can you tell me how the wings of this bird came to be?"

Johnny: "I suspect that they grew, Mr. Science."

Mr. Science: "No, no, Johnny. I mean, do you know how the wings of this finch evolved?

Johnny: "Gosh, no. No, I don't."

Mr. Science: "Very good, Johnny! You have confirmed my test."

Johnny: "What test is that, Mr. Science?"

Mr. Science: "I was testing to see if you knew how the wings of this bird evolved. The Theory Of Our Own Ignorance predicted that you would not know, and since you did not, this validates our theory - that we do not know how this bird developed wings!"

Class: "Awesome!"

The key to fitting in Genesis with Evolution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970335)

Could be fixed if a "day" wasn't taken so literally.

Peirs Anthony Explained incarnations series (1)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970339)

The menaing of day is somewhat muddleded by time....the "day's" from the bible are not to be translated literally...but more a spans of time while "god" or whatever you beleive in calling a supreme being worked on creation. So Day can equal Millions of years...

Um, why? (2, Interesting)

flyinwhitey (928430) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970342)

"Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down."

Why? I mean apart from them being dead for thousands of years, would it really be enlightening in any way to hear a different, yet equally self serving account of a fictional event?

Sorry, (5, Funny)

Gannoc (210256) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970349)


The fundimentalists stopped listening to Jews in A.D 33

Re:Sorry, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970355)

it's fundamentalists

Re:Sorry, (5, Informative)

Burb (620144) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970443)

It may be a troll, but I will bite. Rarely has a short comment had so many errors in it. And I don't mean spelling errors. "Fundamentalism" in the way it's understood by many modern Western Christians is a relatively new phenomenon, and certainly it has very specific overtones that relate to 19th/20th century American Christianity. As for "stopped listening to Jews" perhaps the poster should acquaint himself with the book of Acts in which some of the discussions and controversies between Jews and Christians are described. Some of this was by way of preaching and dialog and, yes, some was by less pleasant methods. Judaism as we know it today is different from the Jewish faith practiced in the early 1st century if only because of the destruction of the temple in AD70. AD33 is an approximation since no one is entirely sure of the crucifiction/resurrection dates. And Hemos, leave out the editorialising. It's not necessary.

Re:Sorry, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970468)

AD33? AD=After Death - that would be 33 years after Christ's death. You must have meant AD0 ?

time to stone Hemos I'm afraid (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970351)

Hemos, you have been found guilty, of uttering the name of our Lord, and so... as a BLASPHEMER, you are to be stoned to death!

Re:time to stone Hemos I'm afraid (1)

osullish (586626) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970377)

A Stoning!! "Are there any women here?"

Re:time to stone Hemos I'm afraid (1)

MrByte420 (554317) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970390)

Nobody is to stone anyone until I say so - even if they do say JAHOVA. (i know - bad spelling)

Re:time to stone Hemos I'm afraid (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970447)

except that would really happen if it were Allah he had mocked.

Unintelligent design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970354)

Having looked at the design of life, especially humans. It is pretty obvious that the word "intelligent" cannot be applied to the design. I have also concluded that "survival of the fittest" based evolution possibly couldnt have resulted in such a weak and chaotic design. Therefore, I conclude that he only rational theory is that of unintelligent design.

Finally!!! (0, Troll)

xutopia (469129) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970356)

I'm very glad they finally did this. It's about time IMO. The Catholic Church shouldn't continue to fight losing battles. Now please let women get ordained and priests get married.

ID doesn't threaten Evolution... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970357)

...It threatens Materialism.

Fascinating Esquire Article... (1)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970362)

The current Esquire (in which Jessica Biel is crowned Sexiest Woman Alive) features an article on how intelligent design is more of a threat to Christianity than it is to science. I don't have the print publication handy, but that was basically the gist of it.

Online version of said article, but the meat of it is subscription only [keepmedia.com] .

Re:Fascinating Esquire Article... (1)

osullish (586626) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970429)

By meat - you mean the Jessica Alba part??

Science and religion (5, Insightful)

thewiz (24994) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970364)

I was raised to be a Roman Catholic and even went to an all-boys Catholic school. Funny thing is the priests taught us evolution in science class. In theology, they taught us that the story of Genesis was a euphemism that was used by the writers of the Bible to explain how the universe came to be because they didn't understand the universe as we do today! (and, yes, we still have much to learn ourselves)
There is nothing incompatible between religion and science since, as a newspaper columnist pointed out recently, science is about HOW we came to be here and religion is about WHY we are here. Unfortunately, the rise of the televangelists and other people who claim that a literal reading of the Bible is the only way to understand it miss some of the points that the stories try to make. For example, the story of the loaves and fishes isn't about Jesus "magically" making more bread and fish appear to feed a crowd. The story is about Jesus leading by example, giving what little food he had to the crowd and the each person in the crowd adding what little they had to it to feed everyone. Showing that being charitable is the way to encourage others to do the same is the "miracle". This is the kind of stuff I learned in Catholic school.
I also find it funny that so many evangelicals are willing to believe Jesus did "miracles" (aka magic) but don't want their kids reading Harry Potter books because magic is "Satanic".

The Church of the Fyling Spaghetti Monster (2, Informative)

juanfe (466699) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970367)


An open letter [venganza.org] to the Kansas School board arguing that the creation story provided by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster [venganza.org] also needs to be recognized...

Sad. (0, Flamebait)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970378)

When you're more religiously conservative than the Vatican, that should be a big freakin clue sign that your theory sucks. I mean, they don't believe in contraception, but they think evolution is plausible, and doesn't contradict orthodox theology.

To me, that should be end of story.

in other news... (0, Flamebait)

middlemen (765373) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970382)

In other news, George W. Bush rejects the Vatican and has called Evolution a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Apple ][ was *way* better than the C-64... (-1, Offtopic)

Tim Fraser (16824) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970386)

...and everybody knows emacs is better than vi!

- Tim

The clockmaker hypothesis (2, Informative)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970389)

It sounds like they're leaning towards the Clockmaker hypothesis [wikipedia.org] . Of course, as a scientific theory, it's basically unproveable, which makes it a lousy theory in my opinion.

Re:The clockmaker hypothesis (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970438)

Of course it's a lousy theory. As an article of faith, though, it's just fine; it lets believers believe what they want to believe, while not interfering with the work of scientists, regardless of their individual belief or lack thereof. Thus presenting a favorable contrast to ID, which is active interference with science.

Yes but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970391)

Orthadox Rabbis are fucking loonies.

I know. I am Israeli.

Vote Shinui!

catholic school (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970396)

My son goes to Perochial school, they teach religion and evolution. I guess they figure that one day he will make a decision for himself.

Typical of fundamentalist thought (2, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970406)

They tend to reject rationalism and go in for magical thinking whenever it suits their purpose. It is a creed that is devoid of any value to humanity. It would be much better if they simply stated "All this change, we're worried that it isn't right, and we should carefully rethink our aims and values!". Because basically fundamentalism in America is all about fear of radical social change.

Of course, it doesn't help that many (on all sides) see public school as a ground for indoctrinating young people with their particular values. It was reprehensible when we hauled Native American children away from their families and forced them into western style schools. It's similarly reprehensible to force diversity training and acceptance of homosexuality and all kinds of other social things down the throats of young people who's parents don't agree.

I, personally, think all these are fine values. But I think it's wrong to force them on others. They will come to them in time, since I believe strongly that these values have much greater utility and survivability in the long term than the ones they replace.

As River puts it so eloquently in Serenity: "People don't like to be messed with."

Another Point (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970409)

This article is about how the Vatican thinks Genesis 1 was intended to be taken. I agree as a wacky "fundamentalist" (cue spooky music) that Gen. 1 is not meant to be a science textbook and is not written as such (although there may be general points that apply to science), what does this have to do with Intelligent Design as I said in my post above.

Intelligent Design isn't about having a set interpretation of Gen. 1 and forcing it into science. There are Roman Catholic IDers, agnostic IDers (few, I admit), etc., etc.

So I think that the Vatican is reacting to newspapers articles about ID instead of ID.

So, yes, Gen. chapter 1 is not a science textbook and is trying to make general points. Bully for them. My socks are white.

Intelligent Design is neither! (3, Insightful)

SisyphusShrugged (728028) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970412)

As an intelligent Christian I find these fundamentalists to be annoying and damaging to the reputation of christianity.

Intelligent design is illogical and unneccessary, as the ed said, the Genesis story is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY! (Unless you genuinely believe that women are created out of a rib, somehow)

Please fundamentalists, stop damaging everyone else who is actually able to accept the scientific logical explanation for life on this planet and still believe that the idea of an cunctipotent entity that follows more the strands of deistic tradition ( a la Benjamin Franklin) is possible.

I thought they already settled their problems... (3, Interesting)

TheWhaleShark (414271) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970419)

Let me preface this by saying that I am a scientist, a Bacteriologist for New York State to be precise.

(residents of New York State, you are paying me right now to post on Slashdot; thanks)

I went to a Catholic grammar school from 3rd to 8th grade (I'm 23 now, so you can get a reference as to roughly when I went to school), and I remember being SPECIFICALLY taught in my Religion classes, by nuns no less, that there is NO conflict between scientific evolution and the creation story, so long as you believe the soul was created by God. Since the soul cannot be touched by science one way or another (cannot prove or disprove), that's absolutely fine. There shouldn't be any conflict whatsoever; Genesis is a version of how everything got here, and evolution tells you how what is here changes. No problems, at least in theory; it seems that fundies just keep trying to drag up the old debates.

the problem with an allegorical interpretation... (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970428)

The problem with interpreting the creation story allegorically is that the Old Testament provides seemingly literal genealogies for various figures (including Jesus) tracing their lineage back to Adam. So, it's not simply a matter of interpreting the cration story as allegory. By doing so, one demotes to fiction entire swaths of the Old Testament. For less conservative Christians, including perhaps the Vatican, this isn't a problem. For others, including but not limited to extreme fundamentalists, it is a slightly more disturbing proposition.

Stretching it a bit too far... (2, Insightful)

Red Samurai (893134) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970433)

They didn't exactly REJECT intelligent design, they just brought up a few points backing evolution. Geez...

haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13970436)

i find it amusing that people take any of the fluff in that book as truth.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Microsift (223381) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970442)

The Vatican has also come out against the idea that thunder is caused by angels bowling.

Capitalism/Science: ID=damage, route around it (1)

fuzzy12345 (745891) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970450)

I may be wrong, but it's likely that the Vatican takes this position because they can't play if they deny the game exists. If they want a say in the morality of reproductive technology and genetic manipulation, they can't cover their ears, shout blah-blah-blah-blah-blah and deny the field exists, which seems to be the approach in some parts of the 'States.

I'm confident that science will continue to be done, because there's money in it. When business leaders read that 51% of Americans reject evolution, they'll equate that with abysmal science education, and locate their R&D facilities elsewhere. Americans will still be able to buy the end-products, of course -- ironically, they'll likely remain the largest market for them. But the science will be done elsewhere. Think of it as outsourcing.

P.S. Why can't Slashdot ever cite primary sources, or even articles that do. This article just pointed to a less-than-informative blurb.

Ugh... More misinformation (1, Informative)

DoubleWhopper (871075) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970455)

Why do you people continually confuse two separate movements?

The fundamentalist belief (to which I hold) is not compatible with ID. These are two entirely separate paradigms.

For reference, ID embraces pretty much the same things as the so-called independent thinking scientists, except for having a cause. Fundamentalists (again, that's me) hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

If you want to lambaste one of the causes, please choose the appropriate one. Or at least make a distinction. Thanks.

Why Christians should abhor ID (5, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970457)

If Intelligent Design is really a science, then the next step is to generate and test hypotheses about the designer(s). Surely the fossil record and current genetic and phenotypic characteristics of organisms could be used to hypothesize the nature of the designer(s). If scientists did this I suspect that Christians might be less supportive of the theory. Consider these likely hypotheses about the designer:
  1. Multiple Designers: Why are there so many different designs for the eye and what does that say about the designer(s)? Why does the human eye lack important innovations such as the reflective layer in the cat's eye that improves night vision or the more logical retina-over-blood network of the octopus eye or the four-color vision of the jumping spider eye (or the 6-color vision of the mantis shrimp) or the polarization sensitivity used by bees and ants for navigation? One strong hypothesis is that multiple designers participated -- different designers, working independently, created these different designs. Perhaps the joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee is really true.

  2. Flawed Designer(s): The waves of extinctions and vast numbers of extinct species suggest that the designer(s) were flawed in their designs. It would seem that the designer(s) thought that velociraptors, plesiosaurs, trilobites, Homo erectus, etc. were good ideas, but then changed their mind(s) or found they created creatures that were too flawed to survive.

  3. Lazy Designer(s): The fossil record suggests that little happened for the first 6/7ths of the Earth's existence -- everything happened on the seventh "day". Out of the last 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence complex life only in the last 600 million years or so have complex life forms appears. Humans didn't appear until about 30 seconds to midnight late on the metaphorical 7th day. (Note that this fact is used by some non-atheistic scientists to say that a deity set up the rules of evolution and then "rested" while the mechanism of evolution created everything. This explanation refutes IS because then the designer is not participating in the creation of all these complex organisms on the seventh day).

Overall, I'd wager that the scientific evidence would provide more "scientific" support for a polytheistic religion with humanistic/flawed dieties (such as the ancient Roman/Greek religions) than for an omnipotent monotheistic religion such as Christianity.

The bigger issues is that the allegedly religious ID people probably don't want to entertain hypotheses about designer(s) and would be especially uncomfortable letting school children even discuss these questions. Yet the entire purpose of science is to ask these questions and that is why it doesn't mix well with religion which is entirely based on faith. From a theological standpoint, I would suspect that Christians would prefer a separation between church and science.

inflamatory.. (1)

wh173b0y (825454) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970459)

people take the creation story as literal truth, rather then a story about YHWH's power.

That wasn't inflamatory at all...

which rabbis are still available? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970470)

I mean, those guys must be well over a thousand years old. I guess Judaism really is the one true religion if its adherents live that long!

Or if you just mean some guy in his 60s who really knows nothing meaningful more about what was happening when the book of genesis was first written, I don't see where you'd expect to get any improvement in the level of 'authority' about the subject.

My God... (2, Funny)

QuantaStarFire (902219) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970475)

"If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times; stop spouting your bullshit and RTFM!!!"
-- Cardinal Paul Poupard, denouncing Intelligent Design

Why not take shots at Islam also? (1, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970479)

Why is it that when religion is talked about on /. that it is only the Jewish and Christian religions that are insulted? Why isn't Islam included in the list?

Your Rabbis Are A Bit Different Than Israel's (2, Interesting)

judmarc (649183) | more than 8 years ago | (#13970485)

Orthodox rabbis in Israel have objected to the display of dinosaurs on yogurt containers because they felt it contradicted the story of Creation as taught by Genesis.

Also, not surprising that not all Vatican representatives are hopping on the Intelligent Design bandwagon (though at least one friend of the current Pope did, from a New York Times report a few weeks ago). ID posits that there are structures that cannot have resulted from evolution (eyes are one frequently cited example). Now, if God created the universe, this is equivalent to saying that God can't have created it in such a way as to evolve these structures. Thus, according to ID, God is not omniscient and/or omnipotent. Sure sounds like heresy to me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>