Re: Pope says universe made by 'intelligent project'

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 20:34:55 EST

Denyse O'Leary wrote:

> Fine, if you want theories and cheap shots, listen to George.
> Otherwise, go to the Post-Darwinist and then proceed through the link
> to Schonborn's site, where S. uses the term "intelligent design" in
> English, and see for yourselves what is happening.

Why should one go to Schonborn's site, is Schonborn the pope? In fact
the recent statement about the validity of evolutionary theory by
another cardinal

"A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what
secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning
into "fundamentalism'' if it ignores scientific reason.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture,
made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end
the "mutual prejudice'' between religion and science that has long
bedeviled the Catholic Church and is currently part of the evolution
debate in the United States.

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration
that the church's 17th Century denunciation of Galileo was an error
resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension.'' Galileo was condemned
for supporting Nicholas Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved
around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center
of the universe."

The pope of course believes that the Universe and life was designed. But
I surely hope not, that he believes that Intelligent Design Creationists
have found a way to scientifically support these claims.

So if Denyse wants to argue that ID is a religious belief then I see no
problems, as this matches much of the evidence presented in court in
Dover. If Denyse argues that ID is somehow scientific, and I doubt she
would given that she has admitted that she is not in any position to
evaluate the scientific claims of ID, then there is indeed a problem
since ID as presently formulated is scientifically vacuous.

I notice that Denyse is still making some silly claims about Gould. Like
Dembski, she seems to have a hard time admitting that she was wrong.

>
> http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/
>
> cheers, Denyse
>
> Again I point out something Denyse has shown herself to be opaque
> to but which may be helpful for others. "Intelligent Design"
> as used by Behe, Dembski &c is a technical term IN ENGLISH. In
> order for the Pope to "identify with" ID he should do it in
> English. Translations in German, Italian or any other language
> simply produce ambiguity in such a situation, & a claim by
> Cardinal Schoenborn, z.B., that the Pope "really" meant ID is a
> statement by a translator. In the same way, a theologian who is
> making a formal statement about, z.B., something in the Augsburg
> Confession will refer to the German (or secondary Latin), not a
> translation in some other language.
>
> & in addition (as I've also noted) the distinction between
> "intelligent design" as a religious belief & as a putative
> scientific theory has to be borne in mind. So until the Pope (a)
> makes a statement using the English terminology and (b) explicitly
> identifies "intelligent design" with the idea that such design can
> be detected scientifically & should be part of a scientific
> theories, it cannot be said that the Pope has "identified" with
> ID. (& of course if he does I'm quite prepared to follow Luther
> in saying "Popes and councils have erred.")
>
> This is not "spin," though Denyse's dizziness may make her think
> it is.
>
>
Received on Sat Nov 12 20:36:12 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 12 2005 - 20:36:12 EST