Biologist and former priest, Francisco Ayala from the University of California: the theory of intelligent design is contrary not only to science but also to religion * Cardinal William Lavada, member of the Congress for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican, said that the Catholic Church does not stand in the way of scientific truths but criticized Richard Dawkins for his claim that evolution necessitates the negation of God
The Vatican is currently hosting a five-day conference to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species and the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author, who has yet to be rested some 120 years after his death and burial as a British national hero in Westminster Abbey. After all these years and despite all the evidence, religious parties all over the world still manage to cast doubt on his discovery.
This is the first of two international academic seminars that the Vatican is planning this year. The church wants to re-examine the work of the scientific thinkers whose discoveries challenged religion - Galileo and Charles Darwin.
Scientists including top biologists, paleontologists, and molecular genetics experts, as well as philosophers and theologians from around the world gathered at the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome to discuss the gap between Darwin's theory of evolution and the church's position.
The Catholic churches have long been hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicts with the literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. However, the Catholic Church did not condemn Darwin the way it condemned and silenced Galileo, apparently because in the 19th century its power was not as omnipotent as in the 17th century and Darwin was not Catholic either. This is of course in contrast to many Protestant churches whose people cannot even hear Darwin's name without grinding their teeth. Pope John Paul II said that evolution is "more than a hypothesis". However, this statement did not penetrate the church. In 2006, a Catholic cardinal from Vienna, Christoph Scheinborn, published in the opinion section of the New York Times newspaper, a former student and friend of the current Pope, Benedict XVI, caused a debate when he said that the theory of natural selection, which is an important part of the theory of evolution, is not compatible with the Christian faith. He was aware of the words of John Paul II, but said that they were vague and unimportant.
The American biologist, Prof. Francisco Ayala, former priest, professor of biology and philosophy at the University of California in Irvine, told the conference that the alleged theory of intelligent design, proposed by creationists, is wrong. "The planning of living beings does not look as we would expect from an intelligent planner, but imperfect and bad." said. "Flaws, dysfunction, weirdness, waste and cruelty are rampant in the animal world." As an example he cites the wisdom teeth which indicate that the human mouth cannot contain all the teeth, which indicates imperfect planning, and if he had employed the planner he would have fired him immediately due to the poor planning. Ayala claims that the theory of intelligent design contradicts not only science but also the Christian faith.
Cardinal William Lavada, a member of the Vatican Congress for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that the Catholic Church does not stand in the way of scientific truths such as evolution, adding that there is a "broad spectrum of space" for belief in both truths - the scientific one based on evolution and the belief centered on God. Lavada criticized the fact that scientists, led by biologist Richard Dawkins, state that evolution proves there is no God.
According to church officials, the Vatican under the leadership of the current Pope is trying to promote the idea that faith is not contrary to reason, and that at this conference an effort will be made to reconcile with the scientific community.
35 תגובות
Does anyone happen to know what the "results" of the debate in the Vatican are?
It is a well-known claim that very important truths are encrypted in the Bible in seemingly innocent verses.
Recently, I found eye-opening evidence of this:
613 Chronicles XNUMX:XNUMX: "Nun his son Yehoshua his son" Gematria equals XNUMX
And here, the sentence: "There is no God, there is evolution" is also worth 613 !!
In Deuteronomy 586:XNUMX: "And the border of the sea, and you shall have the great sea, and this border shall be the border of the sea for you" equivalent in Gematria XNUMX
And here, the sentence: "Science was right, there was a big bang" is also worth 586!!
And finally, the punch proof:
Psalms 887, XNUMX: "He prepares mountains with his strength, he is raised with valor" equal in Gachmatria XNUMX
And also the important phrase: "There is no God who is a liar" is worth 887 !!!
parable.
privileged:
Already by impersonating you proved that you are not to be trusted.
Anyway - your words can also be refuted without any effort.
The Jewish religion did survive, but most of its believers died.
Those who had the sense to abandon her in time have produced many more offspring to this day.
As I have already explained many times (I will not repeat it because it seems to me that you are not built to understand this) the Jewish religion survived at the expense of its sons.
Confidential / Confidential,
On the knowledge site, we practice, out of mutual fairness, not to use two different names in order to mislead the readers. Please refrain from doing so again.
Regarding your arguments, many nations attribute their right to choose to their success in the world (for example, the Christians, numbering over a billion people). You, on the other hand, choose to prove that there is a God thanks to the fact that the people of Israel were persecuted and beaten.
Doesn't that sound a little strange to you?
I support the secret, he is completely right, what do you think is the probability that there will be a "big bang" or evolution, this is a zero risk!!!!!! That's why G-d created the world and all the things you talk about here are from a lack of closeness to religion or a lack of knowledge Quote "Religion exploits those who believe in it" This is complete nonsense Judaism is the only religion! that does not try to bring more believers who do not believe there are no crusades like the Christians or a death war against "infidels" like the Muslims and many other religions Little by little science will prove what the Torah and the Bible said a long time ago and then the whole world will know what the true religion is!! Good day to you.
All the things you say here are nothing more than nonsense and nonsense!!!. I will give you conclusive proof that our G-d exists and it is: What do you think is the likelihood that the people of Israel will survive after the Holocaust persecution and up to a lot of anti-Semitism who do you think has held us together for all this time and the proof of this is that we continue and live today, in your opinion hold on and give all the time this is the religion of course Judaism! That is, the Creator of the world kept the Jews the chosen people!!!
Michael R. – 1:1 (;
Isaiah:
Everything that humans do is supported in one way or another by their genes, so there is no fundamental innovation in the article, but to answer your question in the same spirit in which it was asked, I will answer you as follows:
Yes! Just like humans are mutant monkeys.
A recently published study points to the possibility that religious belief as a behavioral phenomenon is a built-in biological feature of the human species.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/03/06/0811717106.abstract?sid=6bfd2395-8160-4954-95a1-b79747e9bb1e
Does this mean that those who lack this feature are mutants?!
Host of the Universe:
It is certain that science is stronger today - in relation to the church - than in the days of Galileo.
I fear, however, that he is less powerful than in Einstein's day.
In recent years there has been a deterioration in the status of science and one should not be complacent.
The words of the church can also be interpreted in a different way than you think.
From time immemorial, religion has tried to appropriate the achievements of science, and even on this site, many delusional people comment on this or that phenomenon or on all the phenomena that science has discovered that "it was already written in the Torah a long time ago and only now are the stupid scientists discovering it".
The church's move can be interpreted as a step that will make it easier for these delusional people to do their "work".
I regret that no commenter paid attention to the most important phenomenon that occurred with the church's announcement: when religion claims that there is no conflict between science and religion, we should all be happy about that, because it is actually a defensive position.
When religion had the power it needed, it didn't argue or apologize, it just put the "infidels" on the spot and that's it.
In the second stage when science gained a little power, religion waved the "sinners" in disdain. Davin himself delayed his work for decades because of his fear of the church, not because he might be put on the stake, but because of his fear of boycott and contempt.
We are in the third stage where religion says, OK, there is also another approach.
May we reach the fourth stage where the clergy will shriek in a small voice "we are here too", or alternatively they will agree to gather in the prayer houses, give comfort to the believers and stop interfering in issues that are not theirs.
But why with us, why???
Noam,
I just think that such a response shows the diversity of the site's readership. And I don't mean Muslims because it's quite clear that it's a troll and not a Muslim (with a small chance of a Muslim troll). I meant the fact that we attract people of all races and genders, and trolls among them.
My father - delete, delete...
My God is bigger!! He will see your God! He is the strongest!! A million times more than all your gods!! For every tank you bring, he will prepare a million martyrs! For every convert he will bring a million Muslims!!
No on my God! Atonement for him!!!
Insolent humans, how are you not ashamed, every child knows that I, yes I, created the world. and even myself
your,
The Spaghetti Monster (with bolognese sauce)
God:
You're just pretending.
I created the world and a large part of the details appears in the discussion that started in the following response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/volcanoes-may-have-provided-sparks-of-first-life-2010086/#comment-130482
Oh Michael and oh the village fool. I enjoy seeing you, my children, busying yourself with my beautiful creation, the world, even before I created it, I knew that humans would be busy with the question of my identity or non-identity, and furthermore, with the moral and scientific correctness of my book, which I gave to the people of Israel by Moshe Abdi, but it is known to all nations .
Your intention is good and beautiful, it has great grace and a sincere and vital desire for the development of the world as I did plan, but nevertheless an important point I wanted to raise: stop bothering with the petty question of religion and God, this is so 17th century, you have no idea how much I miss this dark period in which the church Catholicism ruled with a high hand, in contrast to them you are in the 21st century, the Jewish century where you, my dear children, the chosen people rule, well, please get busy with the study of science and beauty and illuminate things to raise in the dust of history.
Amen
Someone else:
Indeed - the Bible is a book that describes reality incorrectly and offers us an immoral moral codex.
You are wrong in your claim that it is better than the other codices of the same time, but that is really not important anymore.
As soon as you admit that this is an unsanctified human creation - it's my fault.
To Michael R.
I am not twisting and turning - I wrote my opinion, according to which (if I may be allowed
Expand) Although the Bible is not a complete set of moral codes (and it is possible
which does not even come close to it), but it surpasses most of the absolute
The other codices of his time (and therefore survived compared to them) and also on others - incl
The Nazi codex, built around a trend interpretation of Darwin's theory.
In any case, it is difficult for me to see the Bible as a book that claims to be
A book of observations for research purposes - but a book that uses "facts
"scientific" so to speak for the purpose of establishing a moral position (for example: God
The Almighty had to rest on Shabbat - and therefore all his creatures should rest)
If this example is not clear to you - I raise my hands.
I really enjoyed reading the article - and no less the comments... Meanwhile, I'm having a cup of coffee 🙂
To "someone else entirely":
The Bible may not say much about science, we won't argue about that. But it is clear that those who hold religious beliefs, from the beginning of Dana until our days, mostly deny the scientific way of thinking, blindly, denyingly, pitifully denying the idea that it is possible to explain how the world that surrounds us without needing God. When a religious person makes any claims about the world, he willingly or unwillingly enters the world of facts where science does collide with religion. Evolution is one front. There are others.
The historical basis of the Bible is extremely shaky. The moral standards of the Bible do not coincide with those of most members of the culture (Dawkins' book and others will remind those who have forgotten what is written in the Bible).
Someone else entirely:
Enough with the twists and turns.
The Torah makes all kinds of claims about reality and many of these claims are not true.
It is true that describing reality is not the purpose of religion because the purpose of religion is to allow the religious establishment to control people.
The description of reality is therefore only part of the deception designed to convince people that religion was given by God and not by the religious establishment.
The problem is, of course, that because it is a lie and the religion was indeed fabricated by people, then there are also errors in the description of the reality it provides, and these errors allow anyone who is willing to think - to expose the fraud.
Of course, those who are not ready to think will not understand this.
By the way - even as a moral code, religion is a rather horrifying thing and there are no shortage of examples of this.
to Eran Paying attention to the fact that the Bible dedicates a few lines - a tiny part
From its scope to the formation of the species - and all the other lines deal with my issues
Morals and the history of the Jewish people, it is difficult to see the Torah as a pretentious document
To be scientific - and if it is not a scientific document, the theory of evolution cannot
contradict her. Moreover: it is known that "the Torah was written in the language of my children
Adam" - and it goes without saying that the language of humans in ancient times was not anyway
She could have accepted the findings of researchers from Darwin's time - and that
Another reason why the Bible should not be compared to science.
Hugin:
What a strange question.
Each child is called by a name and the name chosen is chosen for various reasons.
I was called "Michael" after my grandfather who perished in the Holocaust.
I don't know why they called him that name - maybe after his grandfather, maybe after someone else, or maybe because of some superstition.
It is likely that at some point in the past - the first person who received this name received it because the person who gave him the name believed in some superstition.
Michael
Well done for your patience
I took a look here even though my time is short recently
AKP cannot accuse you of impatience
Number 7: If so, what is your name from a semantic, intentional, voluntary point of view and why did your parents call you by this name and not another, what motivated them, etc.?
Even for the exercise, it is interesting to hear the name 'himself'.
Hugin:
For some reason you have an inexhaustible ability to draw wrong conclusions from what is said.
The fact that it is not possible to conclude from my name about my relationship to God or to (vanity and evil) spirit does not mean that it is not possible to conclude from it what my name is.
If so, we will no longer call you by your name but by the number of your response: number 5 after a month of a practical experiment such as the one found by you (and according to your testimony that the 'name' is of no importance) tell me how it feels to be just a serial/mathematical number:).
The village fool:
I'm not angry all the time. far from it. I do get angry when I comment on nonsense and especially when the nonsense was written as a result of the prevention of any attempt to understand things in their entirety.
I am indeed close to the spirit world but not because of my name nor what you call the spirit world.
In my opinion, science and mathematics are the greatest and most wonderful creations of the human spirit.
The attempt to conclude from my name my kinship to the spirit world or God or religion comes up here from time to time and seems to me to be almost incomprehensible nonsense.
Michael, you are also angry all the time.
By the way, if we look at your name,
Discover that you are actually the closest
To the spirit world then what will you complain about?
The village fool:
Your inability to discern irony justifies the nickname you chose for yourself.
What and why are you so angry?
You yourself say that the spaghetti monster does not conflict with science,
And if Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs don't conflict with science either,
So what is the problem?
By the way, I see you're a fan of cheap literature.
Do you want to share with us other creatures,
Don't they also conflict with science?
Nonsense in juice. How can you say that there is no conflict between religion and science?? How many times can you hear this stupid argument? A world created by an "invisible" entity in 6 days? A talking snake? A sea that was cut in two by a miraculous way and for enough time for an entire nation to cross to the other side? A wooden stick that instantly turns into a living snake? An invisible God took by the "invisible" hands His "appearance" a lump of mud did a powwow on him, and suddenly - this lump of mud became a living and breathing person??!!! Is this really a theory that can compete with the theory of evolution that has so much evidence and evidence in the field??
How can one listen to this mix of nonsense and say that there is no conflict between religion and science?
The flying spaghetti monster doesn't conflict with science either! Both Pinocchio, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Ami and Tammy do not conflict with science!!
Enough already with all this nonsense that is only meant to give legitimacy to stupid legends that lack any dawn and logic.