Archbishop Naumann: either allow discussion of Intelligent Design into classrooms, or

[buffalo]

**Archbishop Naumann: either allow discussion of Intelligent Design into classrooms, or keep philosophy of materialism out

** Kansas City, Mar. 01, 2006 (CNA) - Adding his voice to the volatile national debate over the teaching of Intelligent Design in the science classroom, Kansas City, Kansas’ Archbishop Joseph Naumann called for educational consistency across the board, saying either Intelligent Design philosophies should be allowed in, or secular ones taken out.

The theory of Intelligent Design suggests that the shape and scope of life in the universe is too complex to be the result of mere chance and coincidence. Proponents say that some intelligent force must lie at the beginning, but don’t make a claim as to who or what that force is.

Nevertheless, opponents of the theory say it has no place in public science classrooms and that it is a thinly veiled attempt to bring theology into the schools.

In his latest column, published in The Leaven newspaper, Archbishop Naumann asserted that “Faith has nothing to fear from the authentic pursuit of the truth,” but that “what we should fear is a half-hearted pursuit of truth.”

more…

 

[Guar_Fan]

Its unfortunate that Archbishop Naumann tries to say there is a conflict between science and religion.

Science is a study of the empirical world. Religion takes our knowledge beyond the empirical world. Science is necessarily agnostic about religious matters because it cannot be observed and studied.

The prelate cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reveals a confidence that a fair reading of all of scientific inquiry “will lead us to the true source of the world and of life.”

He said that the Catechism “also acknowledges the irresistible urge to go beyond just the articulation of the scientific data to the deeper questions about its meaning. The answers to these philosophical questions profoundly affect how we understand our world and ourselves.”

Exactly. There is no reason to inject Intelligent Design into the science classroom. Merely pointing out that science cannot prove or disprove the claims of religion is enough.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

There is a non-religious argument for Inteliigent Design based on the complexity of the universe and the probability that it could randomly occur.

 

[Della]

Guar Fan:

Science is a study of the empirical world. Religion takes our knowledge beyond the empirical world. Science is necessarily agnostic about religious matters because it cannot be observed and studied.

Religion does take our knowledge beyond the empirical world, but it doesn’t leave it alone. The Catholic religion teaches us that the empirical world is God’s creation, so we have as much right to explore it, seeing it in terms of faith, as much as we have the right to study how it functions and what that means to us on every level. Yes?

Exactly. There is no reason to inject Intelligent Design into the science classroom. Merely pointing out that science cannot prove or disprove the claims of religion is enough.

But, there’s reason to inject atheistic materialism? I doubt you mean that? Right?

ID does not claim that God created the universe. It claims that within nature one can see evidence that an intelligence was at work in the formation of the universe and all it contains, including us. That is not a religious proposition, but a truly unbiased observation made by many people in many places in the world long before atheistic materialism became the standard bearer of science.

 

[Brendan]

Guar Fan:

Exactly. There is no reason to inject Intelligent Design into the science classroom. Merely pointing out that science cannot prove or disprove the claims of religion is enough.

Sort of, the primary question of Intelligent Design is that the fundamental explanation of the origin of the Universe is an Intelligent being.

The drawing of a conclusion from physical evidence is certainly science. That is exactly what Intelligent Design is. That the examination of our physical world leads one to concur that it not the result of random processes.

It is not the presupposition of a Designer, but rather the conclusion.

It becomes theology when the characteristics of such a Designer are examined.

 

[Guar_Fan]

Della:

Exactly. There is no reason to inject Intelligent Design into the science classroom. Merely pointing out that science cannot prove or disprove the claims of religion is enough.

But, there’s reason to inject atheistic materialism? I doubt you mean that? Right?.

Certainly I do not wish to inject atheistic materialism. But I think science, understood from its principles, cannot endorse atheism.

 

[buffalo]

Guar Fan:

Certainly I do not wish to inject atheistic materialism. But I think science, understood from its principles, cannot endorse atheism.

But it does all the time in the classroom.

 

[scriabin]

There is a non-religious argument for Inteliigent Design based on the complexity of the universe and the probability that it could randomly occur.

Sounds like you’ve read the book, Stobie.

*Intelligent Design * by William Dembski proposes we use the same mathematics scientists use in their search for extra-terrestrial life for investigating whether life is intelligently designed or not.

He is NOT suggesting that it is only an “argument by design” that can’t be proved or disproved by science or religion.

He is suggesting that it CAN BE proved by mathematics. This is the exciting part of intelligent design that I haven’t heard explained by the popular media and wasn’t reported in the PA court case.

How? Ever hear of SETI?

Scientists listen to the radio signals from outer space. So far, they have only analyzed random noise. What they’re waiting for is patterns of information. If they identify a certain patterns within the signals (and here’s where the math/probabilities fit in) they can statiscally prove that the pattern is from intelligent sources, extra-terrestrial life.

One of the arguments for intelligent design is using this very same mathematics process to identify biological information as intelligent or random.

The whole intelligent design thing is NOT just opinion.

The courts did not address this issue from what I have read in the press; they have done a disservice to intelligent design theory by equating to simply a rehashed version of “argument by design.”

 

[Orogeny]

T.A.Stobie:

There is a non-religious argument for Inteliigent Design based on the complexity of the universe and the probability that it could randomly occur.

I love it when proponents of ID claim there is no religious basis of ID or that ID has a non-religious component. Who here will claim that the designer in ID is not God? That is a disingenuous arguement at best.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Della:

Religion does take our knowledge beyond the empirical world, but it doesn’t leave it alone. The Catholic religion teaches us that the empirical world is God’s creation, so we have as much right to explore it, seeing it in terms of faith, as much as we have the right to study how it functions and what that means to us on every level. Yes?

Absolutely! Does our faith (or any faith) belong in a science classroom? Absolutely not!

But, there’s reason to inject atheistic materialism?

No.

ID does not claim that God created the universe. It claims that within nature one can see evidence that an intelligence was at work in the formation of the universe and all it contains, including us. That is not a religious proposition, but a truly unbiased observation made by many people in many places in the world long before atheistic materialism became the standard bearer of science.

Then you would be ok with teaching that mother nature is real and is also known as the designer? Of course ID is a religious proposition. That’s exactly why it was developed.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brendan:

It is not the presupposition of a Designer, but rather the conclusion.

ID was developed when teaching creationism in public schools was determined to be unconstitutional because it was religion rather than science. ID was the answer for proponents of creationism.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

But it does all the time in the classroom.

Never once, not once, in all my science classes was athiesm mentioned. Not once. According to my two sons, the topic was never mentioned in their science classes.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe this claim has any basis.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

*Intelligent Design *by William Dembski proposes we use the same mathematics scientists use in their search for extra-terrestrial life for investigating whether life is intelligently designed or not.

He is NOT suggesting that it is only an “argument by design” that can’t be proved or disproved by science or religion.

He is suggesting that it CAN BE proved by mathematics. This is the exciting part of intelligent design that I haven’t heard explained by the popular media and wasn’t reported in the PA court case.

And yet he has not done so. Interesting?

The whole intelligent design thing is NOT just opinion.

It certainly doesn’t rise much above that standard.

The courts did not address this issue from what I have read in the press; they have done a disservice to intelligent design theory by equating to simply a rehashed version of “argument by design.”

Did you read the transcripts or just press releases? Try reading the transcripts, both the testimony and the judges ruling. Don’t rely on the press.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Never once, not once, in all my science classes was athiesm mentioned. Not once. According to my two sons, the topic was never mentioned in their science classes.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe this claim has any basis.

Peace

Tim

Would materialism be a better choice of words?

 

[buffalo]

Brendan:

It is not the presupposition of a Designer, but rather the conclusion.

Brendan makes a good point here.

The presupposition vs conclusion.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I don’t know enough about the arguments presented in ID to comment on its merits, but I do know enough to know that opponents of ID too often express a dogmatic and rather unscientific defense of Darwinism as a fact of nature. The real truth of the matter is that Darwinism receives lots of criticism from within the scientific community (just one problem, for starters, is that it has never been observed - observation is a cornerstone of empirical reasoning). I am not threatened as a Christian if it turns out God used evolution in his creation of the universe, but the world view of many is seriously undermined if Darwinism is not true. It has become a religion of its own, and many of its defenders are defending a religious dogma of theirs, not a scientific theory.

 

[scriabin]

I’d like Dembski’s claims that you can not only *observe * design in nature but can also *measure * it mathematically to stand or fall on its own mathematical merits.

If it fails the academic scrutiny–fine; but don’t define Intelligent Design theory in your own way and then attack your straw man.

Don’t we hear those straw man arguments from Protestants all the time here on this sight?

Let’s not use them against Intelligent Design.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Would materialism be a better choice of words?

Not in my experience.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Andreas Hofer:

I don’t know enough about the arguments presented in ID to comment on its merits, but I do know enough to know that opponents of ID too often express a dogmatic and rather unscientific defense of Darwinism as a fact of nature.

Can you give an example of the unscientific defense you are speaking of?

The real truth of the matter is that Darwinism receives lots of criticism from within the scientific community (just one problem, for starters, is that it has never been observed - observation is a cornerstone of empirical reasoning).

I would like to see some evidence of this claim. It is a very common claim amongst those who don’t accept evolution, but I have not seen it in the scientific community.

It has become a religion of its own, and many of its defenders are defending a religious dogma of theirs, not a scientific theory.

That may be a true statement for some people but has absolutely no bearing on the scientific accuracy of the theory.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Not in my experience.

Peace

Tim

Perhaps not in your experience. You are fortunate.