- Status
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Not quite – you will notice this is a political letter. Notice also that the general tenor is that heliocentrism is generally accepted by church authorities – with the exception of the un-named people Galilieo attacks.
I
ISABUS
Guest
vern humphrey:
I noticed you are from deep in the Ozarks. One of my favorite places on planet Earth is Eureka Springs, Arkansas. Besides being a favorite tourist attraction for Europeans, it has a wonderful artist community. Since I’m an artist of sorts, I just love it! And, the giant statue of Christ (seven stories high) on Magnetic Mountain took my breath away. I’d say you really are living in God’s country!
Mary~
Vern, thank you. It’s real food for the soul to know I can sometimes be absolutely correct.
I noticed you are from deep in the Ozarks. One of my favorite places on planet Earth is Eureka Springs, Arkansas. Besides being a favorite tourist attraction for Europeans, it has a wonderful artist community. Since I’m an artist of sorts, I just love it! And, the giant statue of Christ (seven stories high) on Magnetic Mountain took my breath away. I’d say you really are living in God’s country!
Mary~
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
But you have to be elected Pope. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gifVern, thank you. It’s real food for the soul to know I can sometimes be absolutely correct.
I live just south of Mountain View, about 4 counties east of there. We’re The Folk Music Capitol of the World, and also have the Ozark Folk Center, plus various other attractions.
I live on a small farm (185 acres) about 10 miles out of town – 3 1/2 miles down the county road, 1/2 mile down the common road, and a 1/4 mile down a private road. So I’m in pretty deep.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
O
Orogeny
Guest
buffalo said:
Poor science education?
Peace
Tim
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
buffalo said:
As I said, Intelligent Design (capital I, capital D) is a specific set of beliefs, and is not Catholic.
Now, there is nothing wrong with the belief that God created the Universe, including the creation of man. As Catholics, we are required to beleive that. But we are not required to believe that He used a particular process or method.
Science indicates that the method He chose was to allow the life He created to develop and evolve. Catholicism teaches than when Man eventually appeared, he was ensouled by God.
That there are a lot of Fundamentalists in America.
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
Are you saying God left creation alone to develop randomly?
What are those specific beliefs?
Are you saying God left creation alone to develop randomly?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
You’ll have to be a little more specific than that – whose beliefs?
You might check the polls you cited and see if they asked questions that would answer you on what the specific beliefs.
No, I say God created us according to His plan, and we are not competent to tell Him how to do His business.
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
I asked: What are those specific beliefs?
You siad: As I said, Intelligent Design (capital I, capital D) is a specific set of beliefs, and is not Catholic.
I asked: What are those specific beliefs?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
vern humphrey:
(Yes, he later pushed the envelope, but he never actually disobeyed that first initial ruling of the Inquisition. Which is why he was never actually charged with heresy, just being “gravely suspect” of it [if I remember the wording correctly].)
And??? Show me the heresy, even the faintest taint.
Perhps this was the case, as far as Galileo knew. It certainly isn’t heresy, and throughout the leter he shows his commitment to submitting to whatever the Church has to say on this issue.
(Yes, he later pushed the envelope, but he never actually disobeyed that first initial ruling of the Inquisition. Which is why he was never actually charged with heresy, just being “gravely suspect” of it [if I remember the wording correctly].)
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
vern humphrey:
Second, why don’t you show us what you find to be heretical in it? So far it looks okay to me.
First off, no scientific theory has an “official website.” Your link is only one organization’s opinions and beliefs on the matter.
Second, why don’t you show us what you find to be heretical in it? So far it looks okay to me.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I don’t say it was heresy – but the Dutchess was greatly disturbed by it. It was also, as I pointed out, an attack on some people (not named) who opposed Galilieo
[/quote]
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
I dunno; I’m far less harsh in my judgement of Galieleo.
Why should it surprise us that he made the Dutchess uncomfortable? Why should we care? She found something she had always believed in being denied. It’s like if you or I were to learn that intelligent life existed on other planets.
“Making people uncomfortable” is not -un-Catholic; in fact, it belongs to the very nature of truth that it discomforts, and even calls forth hatred.
And even if Galileo was a bit arrogant, so what? If he had a sense of humor, so what? It does not excuse the Church for condemning him to hourse arrest.
The Inquisitions generally respected the rights of people to criticize or satirize the Church and other officials, so long as no heresy was actually commited.
Eeveryone has character faults; the saintly Glileo had his, but this does not justify his condemnation and subsequent imprisonment. We should stop trying to justify the Church when there is no justification.
Why should it surprise us that he made the Dutchess uncomfortable? Why should we care? She found something she had always believed in being denied. It’s like if you or I were to learn that intelligent life existed on other planets.
“Making people uncomfortable” is not -un-Catholic; in fact, it belongs to the very nature of truth that it discomforts, and even calls forth hatred.
And even if Galileo was a bit arrogant, so what? If he had a sense of humor, so what? It does not excuse the Church for condemning him to hourse arrest.
The Inquisitions generally respected the rights of people to criticize or satirize the Church and other officials, so long as no heresy was actually commited.
Eeveryone has character faults; the saintly Glileo had his, but this does not justify his condemnation and subsequent imprisonment. We should stop trying to justify the Church when there is no justification.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It’s not un-Catholic, but depending on the times and who you make uncomfortable, it can be unwise.
I agree. But for the times, it was quite mild. Remember, witches were being burned in other parts of Europe.
I’m not trying to justify the Church – the Holy Father has apologized, after all. But it helps to see things in context. Many of the earth-shaking events in the history of the Church – such as the Reformation – were political in nature.
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
From their site:
Intelligent Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks objectivity in origins science.
** Objectivity** results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from? We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection – how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.
Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.
OK. What is the problem with this?
From their site:
Intelligent Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks objectivity in origins science.
** Objectivity** results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from? We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection – how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.
Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
For one thing, it isn’t Catholic, but seeks to establish an authoritiative stance over the metaphysical aspects of creation – in other words, it seeks to seize the Church’s authority.
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
How did you read into this that it seeks to seize the Church’s authority. Do you have a source for this claim?
The Vatican Observatory recently hosted a symposium on “The Purpose of Evolution”.
15 scholars (scientists, theologians and philosphers) discussed
two contrasting scenarios for evolution: was it a process which was - and is - converging toward a certain goal or was it a process whose various stages happened mostly by chance. The goal of the conference was to bring about the discovery of new spiritual information by furthering high-quality research . Father Coyne, who was a participant, commented that is was a very invigorating discussion that stimulated many more questions than answers.
I see no problem with it. Much is said on these forums about searching for the truth, faith and reason cannot contradict, God cannot deceive or be deceived.
How did you read into this that it seeks to seize the Church’s authority. Do you have a source for this claim?
The Vatican Observatory recently hosted a symposium on “The Purpose of Evolution”.
15 scholars (scientists, theologians and philosphers) discussed
two contrasting scenarios for evolution: was it a process which was - and is - converging toward a certain goal or was it a process whose various stages happened mostly by chance. The goal of the conference was to bring about the discovery of new spiritual information by furthering high-quality research . Father Coyne, who was a participant, commented that is was a very invigorating discussion that stimulated many more questions than answers.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
But man can, and often is deceived. These guys have about as much science as Eric Von Dannikin had in “Chariots of the Gods.”
You posted it yourself;
“In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection – how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.”
buffalo said:
That is not "Intelligent Design " The particular proponents of Intelligent Design (capital I, capital D) have a Fundamentalist agenda. ID – their concept – is not Catholic.
- Status