I agree with you that ID belongs in a metaphysics class.
Never said that.
You may want to educate leaders in evolution thought. Many of them believe this and teach this.
Far from doctrinal or faith teaching. This is a “meditation” document. It gives a very weak reason to conclude this. Genetic similarities could just as certianly mean shared usage of genetic material by a designer.
A supernatural process. Supernatural events are just as real as natural events. Things happen outside of the ability of science to explain them.
Something more intelligent than scientists supernatual? Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not.
So which part of the document do you feel is at odds with Catholic teaching? Which part of the “meditation” does the current Pope err in? Why would he have the faithful meditate on a false teaching?
So, let me make sure I am understanding you. Science cannot deal with the supernatural, so anything that cannot be currently explained must be determined by science to be a supernatural process? Does that really make sense to you?
At what point should science quit looking for an answer? What happens when that point is reached? Is research no longer allowed in that area? If it is allowed, what happens if the research actually finds a natural answer?
What is “invalid knowledge”?
Nope. Michael Behe, in his Black Box, for instance, does not suggest that only a supernatural designer could exist. A supernatural designer is not a necessary implication of ID, or design in general. One alternative possibility is an extra-terrestrial alien intelligence. In fact, an alien E.T.-based ID theory would fit fully within the scientific arena of natural explanations for complex biological systems, but (for obvious reasons) very few ID proponents talk about E.T. as a candidate for “designer”.
Priests should be faithful spouses of the Church, and ministers of the sacraments and counselors and catechists to the faithful FIRST- then do whatever else they can do- if they can do it without compromising their priestly duties. All the academic knowledge in the world will not save their soul.
In which case the Church would be as opposed to ID as athiestic Darwinism.
I’m sure that is what Behe has in mind! THIS is why you don’t teach the “controversy” in science class. How many other possible interpretations of ID are there? And how much evidence do we have for any of them?One alternative possibility is an extra-terrestrial alien intelligence. In fact, an alien E.T.-based ID theory would fit fully within the scientific arena of natural explanations for complex biological systems, but (for obvious reasons) very few ID proponents talk about E.T. as a candidate for “designer”.
To assert this in science class, you’d need evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence.Nope. Michael Behe, in his Black Box, for instance, does not suggest that only a supernatural designer could exist. A supernatural designer is not a necessary implication of ID, or design in general. One alternative possibility is an extra-terrestrial alien intelligence. In fact, an alien E.T.-based ID theory would fit fully within the scientific arena of natural explanations for complex biological systems, but (for obvious reasons) very few ID proponents talk about E.T. as a candidate for “designer”.
Ask him yourself if the scientifc assertations in the document are truth. They are ponderings of vatican scientists and theologians. They hold no binding authority over the faithful - thank God. Many parts of the document are beneficial and are based on doctrinal truth but to say that it is viturally certain that all living organisms desceneded from 1 organism is not very responsible, let alone relevent to the salvation of souls.
Close but no. Anything that cannot be currently explained but has been revealed must be determined by science to be a supernatural process.
We don’t have that problem in Canada, our political arm in the pro life movement is the Campaign Life Coalition Canada, ably led by Jim Hughes, and he is Catholic and not a YEC.
I think one could non-controversially assert in science class that one theory is that E.T.s may have been involved in the origin of life on earth. In fact, if I remember correctly, some bio textbooks (college, and perhaps even high school) give a passing mention of panspermia, in part because one of the discoverer’s of DNA structure (Crick) proposed panspermia to explain the origin of life on earth.
buffalo said: