Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says

[Orogeny]

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

Christianity is “radically creationist,” Father George V. Coyne said, but it is not best described by the “crude creationism” of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it.

I wonder if Fr. Coyne has ever had the opportunity to sit down with Cardinal Schonborn? He addresses the Cardinal’s writing of July 2005, but there is no indication that the two have ever discussed the issue directly.

Peace

Tim

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

What a wonderful article! You’re right, he and Cardinal Schonborn should get together to discuss this, it might clear up a lot of misunderstandings that have been going around.

 

[CollegeCatholic]

The unfortunate thing is that syntax can really be a limiting factor in communicating ideas. While we are all called to be “creationists” in the sense of being subject to God who created all existence from nothing, it is also important that we distinguish “creationism” in this literal meaning of the word with “creationism” as it finds itself in contemporary debates. It is also important to distinguish “atheistic anti-creationism” and “Christian anti-creationsim” as, for example, I agree that it is apparent that there is rational reasoning behind the existence of the tailbone and the appendix, it is also not to be assumed that I feel that the universe in its totality can be “rationalized” in the physical sense, but rather, but delve into the metaphysical and the realization of the created universe by that which transcends both material existence and the laws that govern it.

 

[PhilVaz]

The infamous original “Wedge Document” is now available.

The text has been available, but not the original document.

I turned the recent scans into one PDF FILE "The Wedge"

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

PhilVaz:

The infamous original “Wedge Document” is now available.

The text has been available, but not the original document.

I turned the recent scans into one PDF FILE "The Wedge"

Phil P

Hi, Phil. Thanks for posting that. I’ve always wondered if this is a real document or not. Why would DI be so stupid to put this down in writing? If this is not proof against “Intelligent” design or anything else, I don’t know what is!

Peace

Tim

 

[bgavert]

Orogeny:

Hi, Phil. Thanks for posting that. I’ve always wondered if this is a real document or not. Why would DI be so stupid to put this down in writing? If this is not proof against “Intelligent” design or anything else, I don’t know what is!

Peace

Tim

I don’t see the connection between this document and proof against ID. Please explain.

Bill

 

[PhilVaz]

Wanted to correct myself, I put up a defective “Wedge Document.” I left off the important cover and Intro page. NOW I have all the pages. The full “Wedge Document” is 10 pages and dates from 1998.

Here is my PDF version from the original GIF scans (no margins)

Here is another PDF version (with some white margin).

Here is the PandasThumb article where I learned this. Original GIF scans are available, you can make your own PDF with the full Acrobat or a PDF Writer.

Should be 10 pages, that is the original.

bgavert << I don’t see the connection between this document and proof against ID. Please explain. >>

The problem with ID is that it is a religious-political movement/idea and the Wedge Document makes that explicit. They have to re-define science. Read Judge Jones Dover ID Trial 139-page decision (if you don’t have it), makes that explicit as well.

Phil P

 

[Orogeny]

bgavert:

I don’t see the connection between this document and proof against ID. Please explain.

Bill

I was being a bit sarcastic (that’s why I used ). It doesn’t seem too intelligent to me to put your strategy in writing.

Peace

Tim

 

[bgavert]

Orogeny:

I was being a bit sarcastic (that’s why I used ). It doesn’t seem too intelligent to me to put your strategy in writing.

Peace

Tim

The wedge document strategy does not contradict their mission statement as noted on the website. I may be misunderstanding, but it appears that you are objecting to a plan for bringing an alternative viewpoint into the public forum.

Bill

 

[Orogeny]

bgavert:

The wedge document strategy does not contradict their mission statement as noted on the website. I may be misunderstanding, but it appears that you are objecting to a plan for bringing an alternative viewpoint into the public forum.

Bill

OK, I’m apparently not making myself clear. I think it is STUPID to put something like this in writing. It is obviously a tool to be used against them. The document makes it clear that their agenda is to get religion into science. They have written exactly that which they deny - that ID is religion-based.

I don’t object to the document. It shines a light on the whole “movement”. I have been consistent in stating that ID is not science. This document backs up my statement.

I also don’t object to bringing an “alternative viewpoint” into the public forum. I object to teaching theology as science, which is exactly what ID was designed (pun intended) to do.

Peace

Tim

 

[bgavert]

Orogeny:

I was being a bit sarcastic (that’s why I used ). It doesn’t seem too intelligent to me to put your strategy in writing.

Peace

Tim

Please forgive my last post. I posted too quickly. I am incorrect in assuming that you objected to anything.

BIll

 

[Orogeny]

bgavert:

Please forgive my last post. I posted too quickly. I am incorrect in assuming that you objected to anything.

BIll

No problem.

Peace

Tim

 

[bgavert]

Orogeny:

OK, I’m apparently not making myself clear. I think it is STUPID to put something like this in writing. It is obviously a tool to be used against them. The document makes it clear that their agenda is to get religion into science. They have written exactly that which they deny - that ID is religion-based.

I don’t object to the document. It shines a light on the whole “movement”. I have been consistent in stating that ID is not science. This document backs up my statement.

I also don’t object to bringing an “alternative viewpoint” into the public forum. I object to teaching theology as science, which is exactly what ID was designed (pun intended) to do.

Peace

Tim

It is no more a tool against them than Richard Dawkins views are on religion. Creation science is ID. ID is not creation science. ID is compatible with Macro Evolution. Many believe in ID and Macro Evolution. IMHO Macro Evoloution is not without some leaps of faith in the concept of pure chance. I am concerned about dogmatic teaching of it as “fact”.

Bill

 

[Orogeny]

bgavert:

It is no more a tool against them than Richard Dawkins views are on religion. Creation science is ID. ID is not creation science. ID is compatible with Macro Evolution. Many believe in ID and Macro Evolution. IMHO Macro Evoloution is not without some leaps of faith in the concept of pure chance. I am concerned about dogmatic teaching of it as “fact”.

Bill

Except Dawkins, as wrong as he is about religion, doesn’t lie about it. Those who push ID have said over and over that ID is not based on religion. I think the document posted here refutes that using their own words.

Macroevolution has evidence to support it. ID doesn’t. If ID were ever to have supporting evidence, I would be all for giving it a chance. Until then, it isn’t science.

Evolution (micro, macro, whatever) IS a fact. What we don’t know for sure is how it works. That is where the theory part comes in.

Peace

Tim

 

[bgavert]

Orogeny:

Except Dawkins, as wrong as he is about religion, doesn’t lie about it. Those who push ID have said over and over that ID is not based on religion. I think the document posted here refutes that using their own words.

Macroevolution has evidence to support it. ID doesn’t. If ID were ever to have supporting evidence, I would be all for giving it a chance. Until then, it isn’t science.

Evolution (micro, macro, whatever) IS a fact. What we don’t know for sure is how it works. That is where the theory part comes in.

Peace

Tim

I am unaware of any scientist of ID that hides their religious viewpoint. The books I have read are very clear up front about their religious beliefs.

Micro Evolution - Change within a species is testable and can be verified. Macro Evolution where new species are created from other species has never been experimentally proven. At this point we can probably agree to disagree.

Bill

 

[Orogeny]

bgavert:

I am unaware of any scientist of ID that hides their religious viewpoint. The books I have read are very clear up front about their religious beliefs.

According to William Dembski, one of the leading ID proponents, ID says nothing about the designer.
designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Report_Dembski.pdf
Go to Section 3, beginning toward the bottom of page 3 and continuing on page 4. He clearly states that ID says nothing about the designer.

Micro Evolution - Change within a species is testable and can be verified. Macro Evolution where new species are created from other species has never been experimentally proven. At this point we can probably agree to disagree.

Bill

We can agree to disagree, but one correction - speciation has been observed in the laboratory and in nature. By speciation, I mean one species changing into another.
talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Peace

Tim