Pope Benedict endorses "Intelligent Design."

Pope Benedict, one of the chief spokesmen on the planet for a return to the dark ages, has endorsed so called "Intelligent Design," a theory that the universe in its entirety was created by Pat Robertson, whoops, I mean God.

The former Hitler Jungend, apparently unembarrassed by holding the same office as Pope Urban VIII, who threatened the aging and increasingly frail Galileo with torture for stating the controversial idea that the earth orbits the sun -"quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, 'fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101236.html

Should he so desire, the Pope can probably call on Dick Cheney at any time should he proceed with an effort to revive the mechanism of suppressing the "atheistic" notion of the heliocentric unintelligent planetary system as well as the notion that probabilistic approaches have any bearing on the universe as a hole.

in some type of comparitive religious study program at the college level.

arguing it isn't religion, then Robertson and the Pope come out in the same week, connecting it to (their) god?

LOL circular firing squad, religious style.

He believes God created the Universe. Not a big surprise there. It has been for a long time the theory of the Catholic Church that the appearance of chaos and evolution was created by God.

What is shocking is the rush of the American media to take that as an endorsement of American doctrine that intelligent design is a science.

This is the counterpart of what the WaPo reports, and note this is not an American media reporting:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html


Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
From:
By Martin Penner

November 07, 2005


THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

"Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive."

Plain fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution is compatible with the Bible. It is funny how "intelligent design" proponents grasp some significance from the Pope's off-handed remark.

On edit: You beat me to the punch, Mass.

I say this as an evolutionary biologist in Kansas. The fight is not whether one can say that God is active in the universe, and of course the Pope would say so.

The issue in IDC is whether that activity is within the realm of science. The answer is "No," and that's something that the Catholic Church accepts. What evolutionary biologists study is nature, and to anyone in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, that means God's work. The challenge then is to mesh the Biblical Word with the scientifically measurable World.

Science advocates are winning the battle to define the IDC war in terms of what's taught in science classes. That's the only battle.

There's no problem discussing creationism (including ID) in a history class, a philosophy class, or a world religions class. But it isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class.

I don't see the Pope saying anything contrary to that.

supported the EVOLUTION theory.

peace.

... with God tweaking it in the right direction from time to time.

Not at all the sort of thing Robertson supports.

It appears that the OP doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

It's pretty easy to take on the dark ages, Robertson, Cheney, the trial of Galileo, and a pre-copernican astronomy, and what better way to smack the pope around than to just link him with those things? Just say he's the chief spokesman for returning to the dark ages. Just drop him and Robertson and Cheney in the same thread. Just pretend he believes the sun revolves around the earth.

Whereas, what the Pope said was that god has a plan for the universe and is bringing that plan about...which, as religious beliefs go, is not unusual, and not intelligent design at all, but has clearly made you so angry that you are off to the races.

Now, I can't wait to see what benighted individuals and historical events you link me with for pointing out the shamelessness of your propaganda piece. Your first reaction will probably be linking me with Inquisition.

and birth control.

On the subject of "God having a plan for the universe:" Determinism was discredited somewhere early in the 20th century. It is pure nonsense to assert that the universe is any way controlled by an external being, let alone an anthropomorphic one.

The Catholic church - not alone of course among religions of course -historically has stood for ignorance and still does. The current Pope has no right whatsoever to comment on science, any more than Urban did in the 17th century. He is not qualified.

There is NO evidence whatsoever for "God's plan" in evolution, none whatsoever. A comment along these lines is simply a crude and rather dopey attempt to place science beneath religion - in spite of the fact that science, unlike religion, has credibility. I suppose in your benighted opinion I should buy into this bit of 2000 year old propaganda about God's plan - but I don't. The Pope's comment are just nonsense and in a sane world would be recorded as such.

Actually I find the entire set of mystical pronouncements about science not only shameless but frankly appalling.

I understand your position that the thought of God is nonsense, and the idea of a "God's plan" is nonsense, but that hardly gives you a right to simply make shit up, link the pope to every bad idea and bad politician you can stuff into a paragraph, putting words in the pope's mouth, setting up strawmen to knock down. Oh, and implying that he is either responsible for or cheering on any error from the past, just because...well, because you can, I guess.

If making up god is appalling nonsense, then making up shit about the guy who made up god is appalling nonsense with a whiff of hypocrisy.

The bit with Galileo happened and the Pope does hold the same office as Pius VIII. The papacy DOES claim continuity of the devine office, and infallibility. Galileo WAS threatened with torture over a scientific matter on which he had no competence.

The new Pope has asserted that God should be involved in scientific thought although he has no competence to discuss scientific thought.

The Pope was a member of the Hitler Youth.

The Church has a well known history of committing torture, although it seems to have stopped after 1500 years or so of the practice.

Of course you can erase history if you wish, and say Ratzinger didn't personally kill Jews, and Ratzinger doesn't personally approve of torture. But Ratzinger has in fact participated in organizations that approved of these things, and like Pius XII - who failed to comment on the arrest and murder of millions of Jews during his tenure - Ratzinger certainly finds some curious things to discuss while not discussing the moral elephants on the table.

But the facts are the facts. This church is quite open about planning violence against women - which is what forcing a woman to go through child-birth after rape is - by the way.

One doesn't need to put "words in Ratzinger's mouth to show the following: Ratzinger is a primitive thinker. He is in fact a creep and a cretin.

but exactly what words are being put in the pope's mouth?

He simply once again revealed the anti-science stance his church has historically taken. Oh sure, evolution is "more than a hypothesis" but it all supposedly happened according to "God's plan." Religionists like the pope can't stand the thought of something not happening for a reason, and so we see throughout history people like him, or Dick Cheney, or similar modern politicians, using science when it suits them and bashing it or its conclusions whenever it doesn't.

The pope's ideological cousins denounce the science of global warming, ozone depletion, homosexuality being genetic, and so on. They are all fruits of the same tree, hostile towards rational free inquiry.

you add that he is "anti-science." And you add guilt by specious association, by throwing in "ideological cousins". After all, you assert, there are "religionists", who aren't the pope but are "like the pope", such as Dick Cheney (Cheney doesn't believe in evolution? Since when?) or anyone else you want to call a "religionist", and the pope and his fellow "religionists" agree on everything....well, how convenient that you can find out what the Pope belives by your calling someone else a religionist and assuming that the two share beds.

So it isn't that the POPE has said anything bad about science, or even that Dick Cheney has said anything bad about science, but SOMEBODY has and they too believe in God and THEREFORE you can just make the assumption they they are all peas in a pod. It's all a very comforting set of beliefs, and I'm sure you believe it, but it isn't in evidence.

All these assumptions and unproven correlations. That's a hell of a way to defend science. Just throw in another couple paragraphs of false associations by way of specious defintions, and suddenly you can divine what the pope is thinking. Why not just read tea leaves, or sheep entrails?

I know your premise is that believing in God is anti-science, just as it is that believing in God is anti-everything good. But just because you really believe it doesn't make it a fact. You should have learned that in science class.

But then again, that's your "thing." Decide you don't like someone, read the nastiest thing you can into their posts, then attack them for it. Oh, and accuse THEM of creating strawmen. Hehe.

You didn't really read the article, did you? Nah, that's not important. Bashing someone who doesn't want religion ruling the world, now that's important, right?

I read the article, I read your post, I read your specious defintions and correlations.

And then you pretend that all you are is "someone who doesn't want religion to rule the world", which of course requires calling the Pope anti science, and further pretend that your an anti world rule stance is what motivates me.

And I'm the judgmental one? I'm the one who reads nastiness into posts? And you are a hard headed fan of science?

I got more anti science and anti reality from your posts than could be derived from the article. I don't have to engage in specious associations or unsupported conclusions. I don't have to link you to, for example, Lysenko.

I merely read what you wrote without your ideological blinders. That too reality based for you?

It's fun watching you flailing in your pit of hatred.

Sure it does. After all, why else would someone ever, ever point out any logical fallacy, unfounded assumption and self serving pile of BS? It MUST be because I need to thwart you on your lonely quest to prevent religion ruling the world. It MUST be because you are good and and I am bad. How childishly self serving.

Have you never even met anyone for whom the truth is good enough?

Apparently not. Or if you did, you didn't recognize him, your belief system doesn't allow for it.

I'm sure it's comforting, this belief system of yours. Mind if I live in the real world, with all it's dirty business of facts and evidence, and just live by that? Golly, thanks.

I'll conclude your sermonizing with my first post:

"I understand your position that the thought of God is nonsense, and the idea of a "God's plan" is nonsense, but that hardly gives you a right to simply make shit up...."

Read it, learn it, try to live by it. It's not controversial in the reality based world.

I'm saying your hatred is causing you to see things that aren't there and attack others because they express a different opinion than you, even going so far as to call others "your type" while lambasting THEM for supposedly generalizing and/or stereotyping.

The more you post, the more your hypocrisy shows. As I said, please, carry on. This is fun.

You said it because you'll say anything, and you deny it in the same fashion. Why not? After all, it's all just tricks of definition, assumption and specious correlation to you, not reality.

And then you add the old "hatred" as the evidence that I'm wrong. That's so much more sophisticated than the "Me good, you bad" characterization I made of your explanation for everything---and your justification.

Justified by faith, sanctified by belief----That's you.

Eventually you might just happen upon a statement that's correct. Until then, carry on! Too much fun!

Finally realizing that simply making additional false statements don't help you any? Good. Now realize that it's wrong even when I'm not around to call you on it, and you've grown a little.

I'm still waiting for you to make a statement rooted in reality and not solely in your own personal prejudices. When you're ready, let me know, I'll be here!

You could try your previous tactics of just making shit up, but I've called you on that and you don't dare.

You don't want to tell the truth.

So you take no positions at all. After all, you are on safe ground if you say nothing except that you are "waiting".

Well, it's an improvement.

You wait right there. Count backwards from one thousand.

You are reading into my posts things that just aren't there. When you are ready to calm down, put your personal feelings aside, and honestly read my post for what it says, I will be more than willing to engage you on the subject.

If you can't do that, then please feel free to get your precious last word in with further attacks on me.

After all, I'm not interested in trying to separate inner beliefs from the false assumptions, specious correlations, and just plain old making shit up that you write.

Which I can either accept as true and fair or you blame me for "hatred". Or told I am not being calm. What a joke.

Whatever. If you ever have an interest in facts, then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, you're just repeating your belief system, with attendant prejudicies and bigotries and cosmic beefs. It's predictable.

Who won the pool?

Only seven posts til the "whatever" this time.

I was way off.::(

that when he's desperately groping around for insults to throw at us, he always ends up using faith?

Would Jesus disparage faith by using it as an insult?

And considering he can't do it with logical analysis or insightful debate, he tries to insult us by mischaracterizing our atheism, hoping to push a button.

Back to the bosom of the true believers for a little pep talk and some comfort, pretending that the subject that never even came close to appearing, "our atheism", is the reason for "insults".

It isn't mischaracterizing atheism, which never arose, but correctly characterizing your specious correlations and definitions and false assumptions. Whatever.

You boys congratulate each other. That's about all you're going to get.

That's worth the price of admission, too. Can you give me one more "whatever"?

and keep to childish insults, then actually put forward a position, after getting beat up on the issues.

Well, it's safe. Nobody can make you admit the truth, and nobody can catch you in your usual logical tactics, if you simply degrade yourself by setting your goals no higher than to piss people off.

But oh, poor Trotsky, you lose on that goal, too. Unlike you, I don't have a huge personal investment in some cosmic beef. It isn't my justification or my sanctification or my reason for a kumbaya moment with another true believer.

Being a person who doesn't understand someone being satisfied with the mere truth, you haven't got a clue how to get under my skin. While all I have to do is tell the truth and you spin like a top.

Keep dreaming, Inland. If nothing else you're great for a laugh! :rofl:

Say it.

You know you want to...

Aw, c'mon, Inland!

We live for those.

"Order" means the sub-atomic particles "always" have their fundamental weights.

"Order" means the proton always weighs 1 atomic mass unit.

"Order" means the hydrogen spectrum is always

656.3nm
486.1nm
434.1nm
410.2nm

"Order" means "ROYGBIV" describes the refraction of light.

"Order" means s, p, d, f orbitals in the Bohr modle describes God's "order."

"Order" means DNA is made up of adenine (A), thymine (T), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and guanine (G) molecules.

The idea that a god created the universe is common to many religions, and it's not surprising the Pope supports it.

But embracing that idea is *very* different from saying that a mystical alternative to evolution should be taught in biology classes.

as Rat-zinger was the leader of the Inquisition before he became Pope.

Hitler Jungend AND Grand Inquisitor, quite a combination. Thank God the Church has lost the power to burn heretics today. Otherwise I would be in deep doo-doo.

Heretics and Heresies
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/heretics_and_hericies.html

"...Give any orthodox church the power, and to-day they would punish heresy with whip, and chain, and fire. As long as a church deems a certain belief essential to salvation, just so long it will kill and burn if it has the power. Why should the church pity a man whom her God hates? Why should she show mercy to a kind and noble heretic whom her God will burn in eternal fire? Why should a Christian be better than his God? It is impossible for the imagination to conceive of a greater atrocity than has been perpetrated by the church. Every nerve in the human body capable of pain has been sought out and touched."

"Let it be remembered that all churches have persecuted heretics to the fullest extent of their power. Toleration has increased only when and where the power of the church has diminished. From Augustine until now the spirit of the Christians has remained the same. There has been the same intolerance, the same undying hatred of all who think for themselves, and the same determination to crush out of the human brain all knowledge inconsistent with an ignorant creed."

"In those days the cross and rack were inseparable companions. Across the open Bible lay the sword and fagot. Not content with burning such heretics as were alive, they even tried the dead, in order that the church might rob their wives and children. The property of all heretics was confiscated, and on this account they charged the dead with being heretical -- indicted, as it were, their dust -- to the end that the church might clutch the bread of orphans. Learned divines discussed the propriety of tearing out the tongues of heretics before they were burned, and the general opinion was, that this ought to be done so that the heretics should not be able, by uttering blasphemies, to shock the Christians who were burning them. With a mixture of ferocity and Christianity, the priests insisted that heretics ought to be burned at a slow fire, giving as a reason that more time was given them for repentance."