Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

[buffalo]

**The Scientific Case for Design
**

The universe is a vast and mysterious place. From the smallest sub-atomic particle, through the intricate nano-technology of the living cell, to Planet Earth, the Solar System and the furthest galaxy, our universe is stunningly beautiful and exceedingly complex. And it poses huge questions.
Where did it come from? Why is it here? What is my part in it? Most generations across history have, largely by intuition, perceived that the natural and living worlds point to an intelligent source and have found meaning in it from that viewpoint.
The rise of modern science from around the 18th century has uncovered deeper secrets of the universe and discovered an amazing array of forces, structures and connections as diverse as those found in quantum physics and the genetic code. In uncovering how natural and living systems function, science has hugely broadened our understanding of the cosmos. However, it has also posed new questions and only deepened the mystery of the universe.
With science has come ideological naturalism which insists that everything about the universe is ultimately explicable in purely physical terms. That philosophy, allied to neo-Darwinism, purports to give a comprehensive worldview which excludes the possibility of deliberate design.
However, the new evidence about design makes that an unsustainable position. The findings of intelligent design theorists significantly change the scientific landscape.
The scientific evidence for intelligent design is coherent and detailed. It comes from areas like the vast information banks and the sophisticated nano-machinery in living cells, the demonstrable impossibility of first life emerging randomly, the fine tuning of universal forces and constants, and the phenomenon of human consciousness. An increasing number of scientists around the world are recognising the power of the Intelligent Design arguments and the inadequacy of neo-Darwinism.
It is noteworthy that when professionals in other areas of study uncover artefacts, such as ancient hieroglyphics, which convey information and display integrated complexity, they do not argue for design – they simply assume it!
What is the evidence for design?**

more…

**

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Pope’s astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was “spectacularly wrong” in its treatment of Galileo

What? Was he burned at the stake?

How many times do we have to apologize for Galileo? And why do Catholic scientists love to do it?

 

[Gallowglasser]

Oh, gee, I don’t know!! You’re going to make me work, aren’t you? I don’t know if my poor addled brain can do it, but I’ll try. I might be able to track down the Church’s teaching on free speech, but banning freedom of speech and its relation to the common good or the greater good? That is philosophy and constitutional law and a bunch of other things; not my fields and ones in which I am not very good at understanding. All I know is that the Church teaches that bad means cannot be used to reach a good end. If you agree with this we’re on the same side.

OK, here we go:

This is from Pope Benedict XVI in an address to the U.S. Bishops:

“As preachers of the Gospel and leaders of the Catholic community, you are also called to participate in the exchange of ideas in the public square, helping to shape cultural attitudes. In a context where free speech is valued, and where vigorous and honest debate is encouraged, yours is a respected voice that has much to offer to the discussion of the pressing social and moral questions of the day. By ensuring that the Gospel is clearly heard, you not only form the people of your own community, but in view of the global reach of mass communication, you help to spread the message of Christian hope throughout the world.”

[bolding added]

marysaggies.blogspot.com/2009/03/catholic-church-and-free-speech.html

This is from the CCC:

2495 “It is necessary that all members of society meet the demands of justice and charity in this domain. They should help, through the means of social communication, in the formation and diffusion of sound public opinion.” Solidarity is a consequence of genuine and right communication and the free circulation of ideas that further knowledge and respect for others.

The common good is discussed in sections 1905-12. I can’t post it all as it doesn’t reference free speech per se but it might help provide some information.

I could find more but I hope this is enough. I think it’s clear that the Church teaches that free speech is good and I think one could honestly say the Church would also teach that a state that does not allow free speech is wrong in that regard.

Does this answer your question? I’m not sure if it does. I found a lot of blogs but I’m careful about using them and most of the ones I saw had questionable content.

very well, i’ll my position of freedom of speech so it is in line with the Church. Thanks for the help.

 

[wanstronian]

Is Intelligent Design “Creationism in a Cheap Lab Coat”?

Denied!!! I’ve never seen that link, but I guess I must have subconsciously absorbed the phrase from somewhere.

And there I was, thinking I’d just made it up… oh well.

 

[Betterave]

You’re entitled to your opinion.

It was hardly just an opinion.

I was just using the example given by Brendan. You’re right - the comprehensively-debunked arguments offered by Behe don’t address purpose at an organism level. (Nor do they actually show the irreducible complexity that they purport to.) But I don’t think it matters. If a designer intentionally drew up the flagellar rotor of the E.Coli bacteria, for example, it seems clear at first glance that the purpose is to move the thing around. But to what end? What’s the purpose of the E.Coli bacteria? Ultimately, if you posit purpose at a suborganism level, surely you have to assume a purpose to the organism as a whole? Not to mention the species. Otherwise, what’s the point of designing a sub-component? “To move it around” explains nothing.

That is irrelevant. This is just a red herring. You don’t throw out an hypothesis as junk because it doesn’t address problems that it doesn’t address. Science doesn’t work like that.

Again, I’m addressing more than one problem with ID. The first is that it’s not scientific. Another is that many of its proponents rely on Arguments from Ignorance to try and show that it’s true.

Maybe so, but you’re addressing these problems with an internally contradictory two-pronged attack which turns out to add up to a straw man. Your only alternative is to say that you’re attempting to address problems with two forms of ID (which, it seems to me, both seem to be straw man versions of the real ID theory I’m familiar with).

Oh? Maybe I’ve been misinformed? What predictive experiments have been devised and carried out? What were the falsification criteria? What were the predictions? Where are the experiments documented? Why haven’t they been accepted by the scientific community?

I’m no expert on ID. I doubt that anyone has perfectly acceptable answers to some of the questions you ask, and some of the questions you ask are irrelevant (based on a parochial Popperian view of science), but there are lots of possible answers and they don’t all support your position. What I’m interested in seeing is an actual explanation from you that isn’t just a straw man or a fallacious appeal to authority.

As I pointed out, I wasn’t discussing scientody when pointing out the logical flaws in many IDers’ arguments, I was criticising those arguments in light of ID’s lack of scientody. And I didn’t just attempt to criticise it, I *succeeded *in criticising it - the logical flaw is self-evident.

No, your logical flaw is self-evident, as I have pointed out. You pretend you’re attacking something called “ID”, but you can’t decide what the rational structure of this ‘ID’ theory that you’re attacking actually is.

Well I did; I pointed out that atheists make robust scientific discoveries without religious faith. Therefore it seems obvious that religious faith is not required to be able to apply reason. Or do you suppose that atheists get it right completely by chance, and theists come along afterwards and fill in the gaps with faith-based ‘knowledge?’

That’s obviously a stupid suggestion - why would I suppose that?? And why would you suppose that I might suppose that???

Your original claim: “Reason and religious faith are mutually exclusive”, is not even close to your new claim here. If you think it is, you not only know nothing about faith and reason, you are also *very *bad at logic.

You said: “…you obviously have no idea how reason and faith are related.”
So why don’t you tell me how?

How’s this for starters: Reason and religious faith are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Leela]

very well, i’ll my position of freedom of speech so it is in line with the Church. Thanks for the help.

Ok, then that brings us back to the question that prompted the free speech discussion.

Is it right for the church to tell a scientist what he should and should not say about the movements of the planets?

Can we all admit that the church was wrong (and perhaps “spactacularly wrong” as the pope’s astronomer said) to do so in the case of Galileo?

Many have claimed that it would be wrong now but it was right then, but that would be an example of moral relativism.

 

[LittleSoldier]

very well, i’ll my position of freedom of speech so it is in line with the Church. Thanks for the help.

You are very welcome. My pleasure.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Denied!!! I’ve never seen that link, but I guess I must have subconsciously absorbed the phrase from somewhere.

And there I was, thinking I’d just made it up… oh well.

It doesn’t matter. It’s still remarkably astute and quite funny and you are the one who introduced it into this thread where I was able to read it and laugh.

Thank you.

 

[Betterave]

Leela, you seem to be a little ‘hard of hearing’, so to speak.

Ok, then that brings us back to the question that prompted the free speech discussion.

Is it right for the church to tell a scientist what he should and should not say about the movements of the planets?

In certain contexts, possibly yes.

Can we all admit that the church was wrong (and perhaps “spactacularly wrong” as the pope’s astronomer said) to do so in the case of Galileo?

Obviously that is a debated point (i.e., NOT something ‘we’ in this thread can all admit), the resolution of which depends on how we describe the situation (which is another debated point).

Many have claimed that it would be wrong now but it was right then, but that would be an example of moral relativism.

Why would that be an example of moral relativism? It certainly doesn’t seem *obvious *that it is. How do you define ‘moral relativism’ here?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Ok, then that brings us back to the question that prompted the free speech discussion.

Is it right for the church to tell a scientist what he should and should not say about the movements of the planets?

Can we all admit that the church was wrong (and perhaps “spactacularly wrong” as the pope’s astronomer said) to do so in the case of Galileo?

Many have claimed that it would be wrong now but it was right then, but that would be an example of moral relativism.

I will NEVER “admit” the Church has been wrong about anything. Individual people within the Church, including people forming a committee, etc. have been wrong but they are NOT the Body of Christ.

 

[Leela]

I will NEVER “admit” the Church has been wrong about anything. Individual people within the Church, including people forming a committee, etc. have been wrong but they are NOT the Body of Christ.

If individivual people are not the body of Christ, and if only individual people can make claims, then not only can the Church never be wrong but it can never be right.

But it is my understanding that while the Church is the body of Christ, that body is constituted by individual Christians. It is simply absurd to say that what individuals do and say (especially what Church leaders do and say) has nothing to do with the Church.

It is like saying that the US has never erred because its fundamental values are good. That fact is, it has not always lived up to its values.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ok, then that brings us back to the question that prompted the free speech discussion.

Is it right for the church to tell a scientist what he should and should not say about the movements of the planets?
An interesting question which deserves its own thread. This thread is particularly in relation to Galileo. Why not start a new thread about the Church and science?

Can we all admit that the church was wrong (and perhaps “spactacularly wrong” as the pope’s astronomer said) to do so in the case of Galileo? No, we can’t, because despite one person’s opinion, there is no proof whatsoever that “The Church” (meaning not just a group of cardinals, or even the Pope himself in his personal judgment but not directing said judgment to be ‘definitively held by all the faithful’) was wrong. The late Pope John Paul II was not speaking of the Church’s ‘wrongs’ in the actions of its people in following CHURCH TEACHINGS, but rather of INDIVIDUAL failures of people TO FOLLOW THOSE TEACHINGS. That he apologized on behalf of the Church was not meant to imply that “the Church” itself was wrong, but rather that in recognizing the failures of individuals, THE WHOLE CHURCH wished to apologize ON THEIR BEHALF.

Think of Jesus. Was HE ever wrong? No, He was not, but He said, “The reproaches uttered against you (the Church and His followers) FALL ON ME.” IOW, HE took to heart and atoned for all the sins of us, EVEN THOUGH HE HIMSELF WAS GUILTLESS.

The Church has taken the sins and failings of its INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS to heart and apologizes for ALL THOSE INDIVIDUAL FAILURES EVEN THOUGH IT is personally guiltless as The Church.

Many have claimed that it would be wrong now but it was right then, but that would be an example of moral relativism.

Morality is not relative but it is not stagnant either.

100 years ago, Leela, you would have been considered morally offensive had you walked onto a beach wearing by today’s standard a modest 1 piece bathing suit. Did morality ‘change’? No. It did not. I don’t suppose you’re walking around in an ankle length dress and with a bonnet on your head, but from 1620 to 1920 that’s what women in the U.S. would have worn, and shorter skirts (on adult women) or the lack of a head covering would have been seen as immodest.

But even though we do not today believe women need to ‘cover their legs’ in order to be modest, we don’t walk around with our genitals exposed (here in the U.S.) unless we’re willing to risk being hauled into court and charged with public lewdness or indecency. Because we still teach today that certain body parts should be covered in order to be modest and decent.

The teaching has not changed. It has developed. It could, in fact, develop further but the Church will never teach that there is NO standard of modesty.

 

[Leela]

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good.”

Is the Church good?

 

[edwest2]

Ok, then that brings us back to the question that prompted the free speech discussion.

Is it right for the church to tell a scientist what he should and should not say about the movements of the planets?

Can we all admit that the church was wrong (and perhaps “spactacularly wrong” as the pope’s astronomer said) to do so in the case of Galileo?

Many have claimed that it would be wrong now but it was right then, but that would be an example of moral relativism.

How many times will you miss the point? How many times do you need to hear the facts? Galileo was out of control. “I proved it! I proved it!” when he had, in fact, not proved it. He got a few warnings from the Church, and then, House Arrest.

“Can we all admit” that you are looking to pin something, anything, on the Catholic Church?

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

God bless,
Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good.”

Is the Church good?

Is Jesus God?

 

[Leela]

How many times will you miss the point? How many times do you need to hear the facts? Galileo was out of control. “I proved it! I proved it!” when he had, in fact, not proved it. He got a few warnings from the Church, and then, House Arrest.

The issue for me isn’t about whether or not he had in fact proven it.Even if he had been wrong, I would still think it is immoral for some to be imprisoned for being wrong about whether or not he has provided sufficient evidence in support of a scientific theory. I am very suprised that he think that claiming to know something you don’t know is a punishable offense. Note that most atheist think this is the case with regard to believers in general. We think that you are claiming to know something that you can’t prove. But no one I know thinks that you ought to be under house arrest.

 

[Leela]

Is Jesus God?

Yes, according to Christian theology. But then, why would Jesus be upset about being calld good?

 

[edwest2]

The issue for me isn’t about whether or not he had in fact proven it.Even if he had been wrong, I would still think it is immoral for some to be imprisoned for being wrong about whether or not he has provided sufficient evidence in support of a scientific theory. I am very suprised that he think that claiming to know something you don’t know is a punishable offense. Note that most atheist think this is the case with regard to believers in general. We think that you are claiming to know something that you can’t prove. But no one I know thinks that you ought to be under house arrest.

Nice dodge. Did you even read the article I provided a link to? Galileo was under Church authority and that authority imposed a sanction. Just because nonbelievers choose to live outside of that authority does not make it invalid.

Once again: how many priests and nuns have you seen blocking entrances to science labs? You appear to live in a very black and white world. The people you know, and yourself, appear to believe you live in a perfect subset of the world. Your orthodoxy is showing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, according to Christian theology. But then, why would Jesus be upset about being calld good?

Who said He was upset? You are reading that into the text. . .you’re also reading a lot of other things as well. You tell us. When Jesus said in your cherry picked Scripture “No one is good but God”. . .what was the context? Are you trying to imply that ‘nothing’ but God is EVER good?’ And if so, does that mean that say the man who saves the life of another man isn’t ‘good’? Actions can’t be good? Humanity is ‘not good’ in the main, but can now and then have an outbreak of ‘good’? What is your definition of good and why is it a ‘correct’ definition? Who chooses what is good and what isn’t?

 

[Leela]

Nice dodge. Did you even read the article I provided a link to? Galileo was under Church authority and that authority imposed a sanction. Just because nonbelievers choose to live outside of that authority does not make it invalid.

You keep missing my point. You say that Galileo was under the authority of he Church but no one today thinks that the authority if the church includes telling scientists what they can and can’t teach about the movement of heavenly bodies. Most people think that it would be wrong today for any religious group to try to exert such authority over scientific discourse. I think that if it is wrong now it was wrong then.