Vatican Raps ID

[geni]

A desire for survival created cooperation and therefore crowd control.

Agriculture caused civilization.

Edit: I admit though, religion may be better at the crowd control part.

the first civierlisations appear to be theocracies and we know relgion had a havely involvement in egypt's agriculture.

 

[geni]

"Vatican Raps ID"

Does it bother anyone else that the Pope's opinion on ID even matters?

Here we have a grown man who speaks a language no one can understand, wears a million dollar hat

No he doesn't. The expensive crowns were given up after VC2

, and believes in magic yet somehow he is looked up to as some kind of scientific authority? Shouldn't his position on evolution be, "Here is my opinion, now go read text book."? No one is asking the Pope's opinion of particle physics.

By any reasonable standards some of the Pope's advisors are scientific authorities.

 

[geni]

But this IS forcing religion into science. Millions of people all over the world are waiting for his holiness to declare evolution science rather than blasphemy. Religious people need permission to believe in facts.

Erm evidence? There has been no infailible statement made on the subject either way so catholics have always been free to belive what they like on the subject of evolution (ok literal 6 day creation would be a bit tricky to fit in with catholic dogma)

Is the Pope well educated on the subject?

Considering who his advisors are he probably has a reasonable level of knowlage on the subject and you don't get as far as pope without dissplaying a reasonable level of inteligence

Why are do we care what he thinks in the first place?

You posted to this thread you tell me.

In reality it's because the guy is the head of a major organisation with a significant numer of followers in the western world.

 

[BillHoyt]

Waaaaait a minute. Dubya can THINK about science?

My point.

 

[jmercer]

Waaaaait a minute. Dubya can THINK about science?

And that's my point. His ability and understanding of science are irrelevant to the question of whether we should care about his opinion on the subject of science.

We need to care about it because the position he holds (just like any other world leader, including the Pope) has an impact on science. It may not be fair, appropriate or reasonable... but then, reality often isn't.

 

[KingMerv00]

It isn't always the advisors that do the speaking. The Pope himself has come out and declared more than once that evolution is science. If the Pope were truly interested in keeping science and religion separate, he would tell people to ask the experts (including his own advisors) or would explain in detail why he believes in evolution.

My point is that the Pope is setting himself up as an authority on the subject when he really isn't. He is certainly allowed an opinion, but the whole system is set up so that it is only that opinion that matters.

 

[burrahobbit]

By the way, which pope are we talking about. Has Benedict been making his views on this subject known or are we still talking JPII

IMHO the catholic church has generally been quite OK on science in the recent past except where it impinges directly on Dogma. Even there the objection seems to be on applications of science rather than science itself.

I LOVE the Dalai Lama

"If science disproves a central tenet of Buddhism, Buddhism will have to change"

 

[jmercer]

By the way, which pope are we talking about. Has Benedict been making his views on this subject known or are we still talking JPII

IMHO the catholic church has generally been quite OK on science in the recent past except where it impinges directly on Dogma. Even there the objection seems to be on applications of science rather than science itself.

I LOVE the Dalai Lama

"If science disproves a central tenet of Buddhism, Buddhism will have to change"

Nope. Benny hasn't spoken to this one way or the other.

 

[KingMerv00]

By the way, which pope are we talking about?

I was referring to JP the II.

 

[bruto]

It isn't always the advisors that do the speaking. The Pope himself has come out and declared more than once that evolution is science. If the Pope were truly interested in keeping science and religion separate, he would tell people to ask the experts (including his own advisors) or would explain in detail why he believes in evolution.

My point is that the Pope is setting himself up as an authority on the subject when he really isn't. He is certainly allowed an opinion, but the whole system is set up so that it is only that opinion that matters.

Granted, the whole question probably shouldn't come up because of course religion has never belonged in science, but realistically, religions have continually meddled where they don't belong, and this pronouncement seems to be a step in the right direction. I don't think either the pope or the papal astronomer has voiced a specific opinion on specifics of evolutionary theory, but they have stated that the study of evolution belongs to science, not religion, and that belief in evolution is not contrary to Catholic beliefs. That, at least, is a good thing to say. It's a pity that such a thing should even need to be said, but in this nutty time, it does, and no matter what else is wrong with the RC Church and its policies, at least on this issue it puts them on the right side, and science needs all the friends it can muster.

 

[brodski]

It does not require a male and a female; just a female in the case of skinks. I think this violates the take-two-of-each-kind bit in Genesis' flood myth.

sorry, should have made myself clear, they where teaching it as a human method of reproduction.

 

[jmercer]

It kind of disturbs me to see people here saying "Why should we care what the Pope says about science", because it demonstrates a level of naiveté I didn't expect in these forums. Let's divide this up into secular and religious reasoning about "Why should we care?":

Secular
The Pope is literally a head of state; as a result, the Vatican has diplomatic relations with virtually every country in the world, and there are very few leaders that wouldn't receive the Pope (or his envoy) and meet with him. This kind of access to world leadership alone represents power; added to that is the kind of public relations clout and media coverage the Pope "enjoys" world-wide... and the degree of influence he has over the constituent populations in various countries. These aspects of the Papal office mean that he has power and influence with the rest of the world out of proportion to his direct religious following. (A not-insignificant power base by itself, I might add.)

Secondly, the idea that an opinion offered by someone on science who is not a scientist is irrelevant is self-contradictory. Sagan knew that the perception of the non-scientific community concerning science was (and is) ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to the scientific community. In other words "Joe Schmo and Jane Doe's" opinion of science can have a direct and relevant impact to the amount of funding and support that science enjoys - both directly and indirectly.

In fact, I'll make the claim that the controversy surrounding ID and education exists strictly because the opinion of the "common person" concerning science matters. So suggesting that the opinion of a highly public, well recognized and influential figure like the Pope should be irrelevant is merely wishful thinking at best; at worst, it could be considered elitist arrogance.


Religious
The Pope isn't merely a religious figure; he is the key religious figure for 1.1 billion Catholics, and - on a world-wide basis - one of the very few easily identifiable religious leaders in existence for Christianity. (And at 2.1 billion adherents, Christianity is the largest religion on the planet.) There are other Christian leaders of note, but as far as the world is concerned, the Pope pretty much speaks for Christianity - no matter how much that galls other Christian leaders.

So when the leader of the largest religious sect in the world (a sect that represents more than half of the worlds adherents in that religion and is also the de facto religious leader for the overall religion) speaks about anything - including and especially science - it's important.

If you dismiss the current comments by the Vatican's astronomer as irrelevant (And I'd like to see the logic behind dismissing his secular degrees and experience!) and if you dismiss JP II's comments concerning evolution and the church, you should consider what the impact would be if Coyne and JP had come out with the reverse position. What if Coyne had said "ID should be taught as science in schools", or if JP had said "Evolution is merely a theory and should be ignored by all true Christians"?

The Pope (and the Vatican, and the Catholic Church) are the proverbial 800 lb Gorilla. You can choose to deplore it's existence, but the gorilla's still there. Be happy it's on your side.