Pope's Astronomer: Creationism/Intelligent Design are "Bad Theology"

[Cattykit]

I never said it wasn't. But you know that this forum is not capable of having a civilized discussion when religion is brought up. It will not take long for this thread to turn to a thread about black and white and good vs evil. Just shut it down while you can.

Fascist and a thread-nazi you are.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The whole article is caca.....
For example it says -- The discovery of aliens would raise huge theological problems for the Roman Catholic church...


The fact is the discovery of Aliens would negate almost all the worlds religions........
For one reason -- almost all of them believe that Jesus Christ died for all mankind.....here on earth...not aliens from the cosmos...lolol

Are you seriously implying that you think "almost all" the world's religions are Christian? Really?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

This is far more interesting than the hack piece about baptizing aliens.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Chr...terview-With-Cardinal-Christoph-Schnborn.aspx

"For me, the whole question of intelligent design is primarily a question of reason. The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion. No person who experiences such complexity would say that it created itself. That's the point. The second step is to ask--OK, which intelligence [created this]? As a believer, I naturally think it is the intelligence of the Creator. And 90 percent of humanity thinks that too."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is far more interesting than the hack piece about baptizing aliens.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Chr...terview-With-Cardinal-Christoph-Schnborn.aspx

Old news is more interesting that current events?

2010 statements by Vatican astronomer > 2005 comments by Catholic layman.

 

[sandorski]

This is far more interesting than the hack piece about baptizing aliens.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Chr...terview-With-Cardinal-Christoph-Schnborn.aspx

Lulzy interesting.

 

[TehMac]

as if something coming from the vatican matters in the least bit to the typical American protestant. hell, the IDers probably put Catholics right next to Muslim terrorists.

lol srsly?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Old news is more interesting that current events?

2010 statements by Vatican astronomer > 2005 comments by Catholic layman.

Far more interesting.

A layman?

Vienna--Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna touched off a storm in July 2005 with an op-ed page article in the New York Times questioning Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and appearing to endorse the concept of intelligent design--the theory that life forms are too complex to have been the product of random mutation. Scientists accused the 60-year-old cardinal, who has often been named as a possible future pope...

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Sorry, I can't help it. This is just too funny.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Far more interesting.

What about this article from 2009?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5859797.ece

A layman?

Yes, a layman. Do you know what that word means?

Vienna--Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna touched off a storm in July 2005 with an op-ed page article in the New York Times questioning Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and appearing to endorse the concept of intelligent design--the theory that life forms are too complex to have been the product of random mutation. Scientists accused the 60-year-old cardinal, who has often been named as a possible future pope...

Being a possible future pope is not a meritorious scientific credential, genius.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Yes, I know what a layman is, thank you, and a Cardinal isn't one.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

"For me, the whole question of intelligent design is primarily a question of reason. The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion. No person who experiences such complexity would say that it created itself. That's the point.

I don't think that you have to be a scientist nor a genius to figure this out.

 

[Martin]

"For me, the whole question of intelligent design is primarily a question of reason. The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion. No person who experiences such complexity would say that it created itself. That's the point.

I don't think that you have to be a scientist nor a genius to figure this out.

Labeling evolution a "random process" is either being ignorant or purposefully obtuse. Second, it's unreasonable only if you've already set made up your mind without bothering to actually read or understand anything.

 

[Train]

lol srsly?

actually ya, some protestant sects absolutely HATE the pope more than anything.

They probably just have big-hat envy.

//Goes to watch Eurotrip again

 

[IronWing]

Yes, I know what a layman is, thank you, and a Cardinal isn't one.

In the realm of science a cardinal, unless also a scientist, is a layman. An astronomer, as useless as only an astronomer can be, is still a scientist and not a layman in the realm of science.

 

[sandorski]

"For me, the whole question of intelligent design is primarily a question of reason. The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion. No person who experiences such complexity would say that it created itself. That's the point.

I don't think that you have to be a scientist nor a genius to figure this out.

It's a cop out.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes, I know what a layman is, thank you, and a Cardinal isn't one.

How so? What is his formal training in science? Where can we see your claim demonstrated? Has he ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Has he even taken academic science courses from an accredited university?

Put up, or shut up.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"For me, the whole question of intelligent design is primarily a question of reason. The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion. No person who experiences such complexity would say that it created itself. That's the point.

I don't think that you have to be a scientist nor a genius to figure this out.

Of course not, a scientist and a genius could both see that the claim is patently false. Random processes easily produce complexity, and like Martin said, evolution is hardly a random process in the first place.

 

[Homerboy]

I think PhineasJWhoopee is thinking of the "layman" term as it is used in The Church.

Now please, everyone just STFU... this is the SAME SHIT OVER AND OVER in EVERY ATOT religion thread. How can you not get sick of it?

 

[dighn]

i think phineasjwhoopee is thinking of the "layman" term as it is used in the church.

Now please, everyone just stfu... This is the same shit over and over in every atot religion thread. How can you not get sick of it?

because god is serious business

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Labeling evolution a "random process" is either being ignorant or purposefully obtuse. Second, it's unreasonable only if you've already set made up your mind without bothering to actually read or understand anything.

"The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion. No person who experiences such complexity would say that it created itself."

What do you find wrong with this statement?

If the complexity of life can't be explained by a random process, as you appear to acknowledge, then there must be a design. A design infers intelligence, hence the ID theory of creation.

 

[Homerboy]

because god is serious business

Has one of these threads/"discussions" EVER, even ONCE resulted in agreed upon outcome? No. It just always devolves to a stupid up and back bitching match. Gibson saw this in the very 1st response to the OP.

 

[TheVrolok]

I don't see what the big deal is, most modern Catholics that I have spoken with already agree with this thought.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Far more interesting.

What about this article from 2009?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5859797.ece

No acknowledgement of this article, Phinneas? In it, a professor of Philosophy of Science from the Santa Croce Pontifical University in Rome is quoted saying, "recent declarations by Popes have asserted the full accordance of Catholic doctrine and evolutionary biology."

Is he wrong? Certainly, he is no layman of science, in contrast to the Cardinal.

 

[IronWing]

"The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion. No person who experiences such complexity would say that it created itself."

What do you find wrong with this statement?

If the complexity of life can't be explained by a random process, as you appear to acknowledge, then there must be a design. A design infers intelligence, hence the ID theory of creation.

Not a random process != design

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Not a random process != design

NONRANDOM (adjective)


Meaning:
Not random
Similar:
orderly; systematic (not haphazard)
purposive (having or showing or acting with a purpose or design)
Antonym:
random (lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance)