Creationism vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Sp`ange
- Start date
I don't think that trick can work because not everyone has the same mitochondrial DNA (IIRC). While large swashes of population can be traced back to one woman, that doesn't mean she was the only one at the time. Since people left Africa at different times, you also find small groups of people still out there who definately do not trace down to the exact same female that most people do.fly said:
Vatican Astronomer: Intelligent Design Not Science
Friday, November 18, 2005
VATICAN CITY — The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, becoming 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.
Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.
In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.
"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."
Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.
"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."
The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.
Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.
In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."
Friday, November 18, 2005
VATICAN CITY — The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, becoming 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.
Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.
In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.
"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."
Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.
"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."
The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.
Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.
In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."
That trick does work. You can only inherit mitochondrial DNA from your mother, and it mutates at a known rate. There is only 1 set of parents for all of us. If there are 2 sets, you haven't gone back far enough.theacoustician said:
SpangeMonkee said:
the hebrew word used for day in the first verses of the bible could refer to either a 24 hour period or an unspecified amount of time. for example, the same word was used for each of the seven days you mention that was used to describe the six days as a whole.
and as an aside, i don't think it was mentioned in this thread, the bible doesn't say that the earth/universe was created in one of those six days. it allows for eons of time between.
S
smileynev
Guest
I created a nasty crap patty in the toilet this morning. I didn't give it a chance to evolve before I flushed it, though
fly said:
theac is correct
they were getting proteins in a bottle filled with goo back in the 50's. for some odd reason i remember the russian guys name that started that whole idea and the dude who did the experiments in the 50's, odd considering i have to think for a moment when asked how old i am... scientists continuing his work have been able to produce nucleic acid components in the lab.edit> i see theac provided a link...don't mind me
Last edited:
fly said:Can you find me a link about that? I trust Richard Dawkins until you give me a link.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-41351
if britannica isn't good enough, google 'abiotic synthesis of organic molecules' cause i'm too lazy to find anything else.
as regards the original question...
intelligent design has no place in public schools in a science class. nor does teaching evolution as fact. widespread reference to evolution as fact almost creates (HAHA, CREATES) the illusion that the theory has all but been explained. exulting evolutionary theories to a self-evident axiom is just as inherently wrong as religious zealots that flap their jaws without doing their own research, some of whom probably haven't seen an opened bible since their mommy threw it at them from across the room for spilling her gin martini and disturbing her afternoon soap-operas. present the facts in the classroom.
an un-biased intelligent design/evolution class would be incredibly interesting at the college level.
intelligent design has no place in public schools in a science class. nor does teaching evolution as fact. widespread reference to evolution as fact almost creates (HAHA, CREATES) the illusion that the theory has all but been explained. exulting evolutionary theories to a self-evident axiom is just as inherently wrong as religious zealots that flap their jaws without doing their own research, some of whom probably haven't seen an opened bible since their mommy threw it at them from across the room for spilling her gin martini and disturbing her afternoon soap-operas. present the facts in the classroom.
an un-biased intelligent design/evolution class would be incredibly interesting at the college level.
Mean Mr. Mustard
Always shouts out something obscene
if a priest can explain dinosaurs to me and convince me, i'll go back to catholoism(if I could spell it correctly)
There's no reason to believe in creationism. Religion is just a set of stories made up to instill good morals and explain the unexplained.Drool-Boy said:
There are really only two possabilities:
1. we evolved from apes
2. aliens put us here
CletusJones said:
No no.... there are plenty of other things to believe. Just not many of them have any utility. It could easily be believed that we exist inside of something else. With how virtual reality environments are coming along, we could all just be simulations.
And there really is no harm in believing we were all created at whatever stage of evolution is preferred. Evolution should still be used to describe how things are, though. It works.
ZOMG THE MATRIX HAS UStaeric said:No no.... there are plenty of other things to believe. Just not many of them have any utility. It could easily be believed that we exist inside of something else. With how virtual reality environments are coming along, we could all just be simulations.
And there really is no harm in believing we were all created at whatever stage of evolution is preferred. Evolution should still be used to describe how things are, though. It works.
I dunno. I find it incredibly unlikely that creationism is valid in any way. I also have issues with religion though so I'm very biased.
CletusJones said:ZOMG THE MATRIX HAS US
I dunno. I find it incredibly unlikely that creationism is valid in any way. I also have issues with religion though so I'm very biased.
The catch, though, something was created at some point. Cause and effect can only take you back so far.
(Or is it affect?)
Sure, and that's where the big bang theory comes into play. Once there was a universe, planet formation and all that can be explained. It's the very beginning of time that's the real mystery.taeric said: