DI and Theological Deviations

Father Coyne is 73. He retired after 25 years as director. On what grounds does anyone think this was anything other than an ordinary retirement?

Funes, an astronomer and a Jesuit priest, is one of a dozen scientists, most of them Jesuits, associated with the Vatican Observatory Research Group that operate the Arizona telescope and engages in advanced astrophysics, cosmology and galactic and extragalactic research. Few Catholics and even fewer Americans are aware that the Vatican has a telescope in Arizona or even that the Catholic Church engages in scientific research. But the priests see themselves bridging the gap between science and religion. In the process, they have emerged as a powerful voice against "creationism" and the theory of "intelligent design," which holds that certain forms in nature are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been created by a "designer" who might be called God. Like all the priest-scientists, Funes said he kept his astronomy and religion separate. "When I teach at the University of Arizona, I tell students, 'I am a priest, a Jesuit, but my class is a science class ... and Science is about natural, not supernatural causes,"' he said.

The "Zachman Framework" is used to categorize information in terms of:

Who, What, Where, When, How and Why.

If we look at the various narratives (apologete information) for bio-genesis we find that only the Personal Cause narrative (creationism) actually contains the "Who" attribute. All others deliberately mask (delete or mutate) this vital consideration.

The reason is simple: include a personal cause in a bio-genesis and you must acknowledge a creator.

This is basic Information Science 101.

The ouster of Rev. Coyne comes in the context of an announcement published in the Dallas Morning News that Pope Benedict XVI plans to lead a seminar next month, "Creation and Evolution," that will reportedly examine Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and its impact on Catholic teaching.

— RSR

The "Zachman Framework" is used to categorize information in terms of:

Who, What, Where, When, How and Why.

If we look at the various narratives (apologete information) for meteorology we find that only the Personal Cause narrative (storehouses for the rain) actually contains the "Who" attribute. All others deliberately mask (delete or mutate) this vital consideration.

The reason is simple: include a personal cause in meteorology and you must acknowledge a creator.

This is basic Information Science 101.

This quote seemed to me full of hubris:

"And finally, if intelligent design is truly a scientific theory as claimed, what is the scientific proof that provides the evidentiary basis for making a determination about the truth or falsity of what God knows and what he doesn't."

It may be an effective criticism of ID discourse - but what about orthodox science? What about the mote in the eye of science.

Science can tell us nothing about how the most fundamental physical laws have emerged or why they are framed in that particular way and not another.
Science asks us simply to take on trust that there are these mysterious "laws of the universe". But of course it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask WHY are these particular laws in operation.

Meanwhile cosmologists trade insults over their bizarre competing models - models so diverse that it seems almost impossible to accept that they have emerged from the one discipline! What if evolutionists peddled a hundred competing theories of evolution - would we give them much credence? At least orthodox neo-Darwinism is broadly consistent (even if wrong).

M,Y STORY ABOUT THE VATI8CAN OBSERVATORY IN ARIZONA By Alan Elsner MT. GRAHAM, Ariz, June 1 (Reuters) - From his vantage point atop the highest peak in southern Arizona, Father Jose Funes is lining up the Vatican telescope for a night of observation, probing the processes that lead galaxies to form and stars to be born. Funes, an astronomer and a Jesuit priest, is one of a dozen scientists, most of them Jesuits, associated with the Vatican Observatory Research Group that operate the Arizona telescope and engages in advanced astrophysics, cosmology and galactic and extragalactic research. Few Catholics and even fewer Americans are aware that the Vatican has a telescope in Arizona or even that the Catholic Church engages in scientific research. But the priests see themselves bridging the gap between science and religion. In the process, they have emerged as a powerful voice against "creationism" and the theory of "intelligent design," which holds that certain forms in nature are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been created by a "designer" who might be called God. Like all the priest-scientists, Funes said he kept his astronomy and religion separate. "When I teach at the University of Arizona, I tell students, 'I am a priest, a Jesuit, but my class is a science class ... and Science is about natural, not supernatural causes,'" he said.

field: a flat expanse, superficial, lacking in depth; overall, a boring vista.

Maybe you should try taking out an ad in the Personals, dude: fallow field, aching to be plowed, but needs fertilizer (manure acceptable, though prefer sterilized); likewise in desperate need of seeds from which novel thought might someday spring.

"...what is the scientific proof that provides the evidentiary basis for making a determination about the truth or falsity of what God knows and what he doesn't."... may be an effective criticism of ID discourse - but what about orthodox science?

— field

What about the mote in the eye of science.

Science asks us simply to take on trust that there are these mysterious "laws of the universe". But of course it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask WHY are these particular laws in operation.

Meanwhile cosmologists trade insults over their bizarre competing models - models so diverse that it seems almost impossible to accept that they have emerged from the one discipline! What if evolutionists peddled a hundred competing theories of evolution - would we give them much credence? At least orthodox neo-Darwinism is broadly consistent (even if wrong).

The reason is simple: include a personal cause in a bio-genesis and you must acknowledge a creator.

Science can tell us nothing about how the most fundamental physical laws have emerged or why they are framed in that particular way and not another. Science asks us simply to take on trust that there are these mysterious "laws of the universe".

But of course it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask WHY are these particular laws in operation.

Meanwhile cosmologists trade insults over their bizarre competing models - models so diverse that it seems almost impossible to accept that they have emerged from the one discipline!

In response to Gerald Harbison's comment about whether Coyne jumped or was pushed:

As the author of the post that Reed Cartwright kindly linked to on Red State Rabble, I don't personally know if Coyne was "ousted" or simply retired.

Early reports -- including in the Chronicle of Higher Education and from the Religion News Service -- which I relied on when writing this post used the words "oust" and "replace." Here are the links:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/ 1...ry_19838_1.html

http://chronicle.com/news/articl...er-of- evolution

Notice too, that Chapman -- who would seem to have sources of information from inside the Catholic Church -- frames it as the Pope ousting Coyne.

If anyone has any information about the exact nature of Coyne's departure from the Vatican Observatory we would be interested to hear it.

Though a long-lapsed Catholic, I can't help but feel a bit smug comparing the sophistication of the Catholic theological enterprise to the arid silliness of its noisier fundamentalist competititors. But maybe I should wait and see what Mr. Ratzinger is up to first.

Though a long-lapsed Catholic, I can't help but feel a bit smug comparing the sophistication of the Catholic theological enterprise to the arid silliness of its noisier fundamentalist competititors.

From another group I participate in, it seems Coyne has cancer and is in his seventies, so felt it was time to retire:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/96471

Ondoher,

Firstly, Meteorology aint Theology. Your parallels are bent and twisted.

Secondly, you might try quoting someone when you lift their lines.

Meteorology aint Theology

Right. It's *ID* that is theology.