Vatican agrees that evolution, not intelligent design, belongs in science class

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

L'Osservatore is the official newspaper of the Vatican and basically represents the Vatican's views. Not all its articles represent official church policy. At the same time, it would not be expected to present an article that dissented deeply from that policy.

hallelujah and amen!

Happy Belated  *Pre-Birthday Mr. Darwin. :)

edit to correct. * it's tomorrow. oops!

good news!

but sadly, i know this won't make a ripple in the views of those who cling desperately to their: 

"derrrrr i didn't come from no monkey!" beliefs.  

*sigh*

right.

i'm not sure it was catholics who were pushing for ID in science class in the first place

but it's kind of good to have a religious authority in favor of science in science class and religion in religion class (or in church)

(the dalai lama is very much in favor of science as well, fwiw)

wow!  this is the same vatican that just de-excommunicated williamson?

i had no idea what it meant that they de-excommunicated those holocaust deniers

unless they're forgiving them?

that holocaust deniers can be helped see the truth inside the church better than outside it?

dunno...

i've heard speculation that that was the rationale, nomo, but i've also heard that the pope "didn't know" that williamson denied the holocaust.

I like this little article.

hehehe good one tom

Original Post by jules817:

good news!

but sadly, i know this won't make a ripple in the views of those who cling desperately to their: 

"derrrrr i didn't come from no monkey!" beliefs.  

*sigh*

::is convinced Jules comes from a long and distinguished line of monkies::

correction: Jules comes from a long and distinguished line of dinosaur-riding monkeys  

i belive you could both be right!!

*noms Brontosaurus jerky*

This is more fun than a barrel of ancestors!

The Roman Catholic church has been supporting evolution for some time now. I think Pope John Paul II was the first to accept the idea of common descent. We just need the rest of the American Christians to catch on to this.

Meh. At least we're a FREE nation. There shouldn't have to be rules about "you may or may not teach this or this". Blah blah. People have rights to their own opinions - be them religious, agnostic, athiest, or otherwise. Some old guy in a wierd hat (mister pope) or even a group of scientists can't force anyone to believe anything.

People should be allowed to just speak for themselves and follow whatever path THEY choose in life - not be forced down one that someone else THINKS is right.

What is unscientific is starting at a conclusion and "finding another" model to fit it if Darwin's is not good enough.  For those who are interested in hearing the reason that many people believe in intelligent design over something from nothing evolution, I recommend you check out www.answersingenesis.com They have lots of great info explaining the creationist view and showing how unscientific (and faith-based) many evolutionist arguments are. I only post this since since someone said something derogatory about creationists (we didn't come from monkeys, etc) and I would like to show that my views ARE based on the same scientific data, interpreted differently.

Here's a good place to start: (about carbon dating)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/ does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Remember, the truth doesn't fear scrutiny. Scrutiny only proves that the truth is true.

well, since i believe the bible was written by a bunch of men 2000 years ago, i highly doubt a site called "answersingenesis" is going to provide any information that will sway me either way. if you have some unbiased secular sources, i'll certainly check them out.

and zebulancherry....i'm a little confused as to what your point is? you don't think there should be any rules as to what is taught in schools? how would that work?

Original Post by zebulancherry:

Meh. At least we're a FREE nation. There shouldn't have to be rules about "you may or may not teach this or this". Blah blah. People have rights to their own opinions - be them religious, agnostic, athiest, or otherwise. Some old guy in a wierd hat (mister pope) or even a group of scientists can't force anyone to believe anything.

People should be allowed to just speak for themselves and follow whatever path THEY choose in life - not be forced down one that someone else THINKS is right.

Science should be taught in a science class. There are other places to learn about faith.

Original Post by nikidust:

What is unscientific is starting at a conclusion and "finding another" model to fit it if Darwin's is not good enough.  For those who are interested in hearing the reason that many people believe in intelligent design over something from nothing evolution, I recommend you check out www.answersingenesis.com They have lots of great info explaining the creationist view and showing how unscientific (and faith-based) many evolutionist arguments are. I only post this since since someone said something derogatory about creationists (we didn't come from monkeys, etc) and I would like to show that my views ARE based on the same scientific data, interpreted differently.

 

Here's a good place to start: (about carbon dating)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/ does-c14-disprove-the-bible

 

Remember, the truth doesn't fear scrutiny. Scrutiny only proves that the truth is true.

I find it interesting that a lot of young earth creationists focus on carbon dating to debunk the idea that the earth is old. In reality, arguing that carbon dating is inaccurate for whatever reason, doesn't really change anything. Creationists base their argument on the assumption that the earth is young:

If the earth is young, then the ratio between C-14 and C-12 is not at a steady state yet. If the C-14/C-12 is not at a steady state yet, then Carbon dating can't prove that the earth is old.

Even if we accepted this argument, it misses the fact that Carbon isn't even used to date the earth. Young earth creationists tend to ignore uranium and potassium which was actually used to date the planet at 4.6 billion years old.

Original Post by zebulancherry:

There shouldn't have to be rules about "you may or may not teach this or this".

I think you should give some serious consideration to your position on this topic.  Do you seriously believe that there shouldn't be any standards?