Reconciliation

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Tue May 20, 2008 5:14 pm

But seriously, this is rather sobering.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue May 20, 2008 7:33 pm

The Catholics believe in evolution anyway...except they believe that God intervened when man evolved and inserted a soul.

Which kinda leave me speechless, but hey.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Tue May 20, 2008 7:44 pm

Was it intravenous or oral?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 20, 2008 8:49 pm

Judging by James Brown's singing, I'd have guessed rectal.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Tue May 20, 2008 9:21 pm

I thought the thread title was the new -tion series from IDW...

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Sun May 25, 2008 5:13 am

On a slightly more serious note, the Catholics do deserve at least a little bit of credit for actually changing their dogma twice - once to incorporate Gallileo's notion that the Earth is not the centre of the universe and once again to accept that evolution happened. It's a rare thing indeed for a religious institution to admit they were wrong.

As regards the Pennsylvania school board and the 38% of Americans, they have totally misunderstood what is meant by a scientific theory. Darwin's "theory" has been rigorously tested by the scientific community since its inception. It has been tested time and time again to try and find holes in it, to try and make it fail. That's what a theory is. The word that they are looking for is "hypothesis" - and evolution ceased being a hypothesis a long, long time ago.

Just been reading The Science of Discworld III - Darwin's Watch, which is a fantastic book and covers this in great detail, naturally. It's fascinating because most of the "proof" for ID comes from Michael Behe's notion of "irreducible complexity", but the more scientists look at "irreducible complexity" they find that it's not quite so irreducible after all. Behe's example of a bacteria's flagellum, the little whip-like means of propulsion, says that if you take away any part of the flagellum the whole thing stops working so it must have been coded into bacterial DNA all at once. However other real scientists pointed out that the base of the flagellum is essentially a type III secretory system. So if you take away parts of the flagellum it no longer functions as a means of propulsion, but it does function of a means of attack. It's entirely possible one evolved from the other. Basically there isn't any credible cientific evidence for ID, despite how much they try to dress it up as such. Essentially the argument boils down to people who rely on their sense of personal disbelief - "I can't imagine how this happened so it can't have happened" - or their sense of personal disgust - "I ain't kin to no ape!" - being in positions of power. I also think it's disgusting that Blair and now Brown encouraged these kind of faith schools in the UK.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun May 25, 2008 1:03 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:On a slightly more serious note, the Catholics do deserve at least a little bit of credit for actually changing their dogma twice - once to incorporate Gallileo's notion that the Earth is not the centre of the universe and once again to accept that evolution happened. It's a rare thing indeed for a religious institution to admit they were wrong.

I heard on the radio earlier this week that the Vatican's chief astronomer has stated that they are no longer ruling out the possibility of the existence of extra-terrestrial life, as he has determined that there's nothing contradictory about it so far as their belief system goes.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Sun May 25, 2008 1:58 pm

Rebis wrote:I heard on the radio earlier this week that the Vatican's chief astronomer has stated that they are no longer ruling out the possibility of the existence of extra-terrestrial life, as he has determined that there's nothing contradictory about it so far as their belief system goes.

Well, they deal in the imaginary every day, why should they rule out little green men?

Incidentally, did anyone hear Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (leader of the Roman Catholic church in Britain) the other day saying that without more religion in government we would be heading towards our own version of the third reich?

Not to get too ranty about it, but presumably this was a different third reich that was democratically elected by a country that was 99% Christian after a thousand years or so of Christian anti-semitism in Europe, of which 66% followed the teachings of Martin Luther (who wrote that the perfidious Jews should be hanged higher than any thief) and the other 33% were Catholics whose bishops decreed they could not join the Nazi party...until 1933 when Hitler was elected, when they reversed that decision, of course. And nothing to do with the fact that SS officers had "Gott Mitt Uns" cast into their belt buckles, just above the swastika, which of course is a kind of cross, and not a Christian symbol at all. And Pope Pius XII never held a celebratory mass every year to mark the Fuhrer's birthday or anything (the Vatican supported three European countries during the 30s and 40s, those being Spain Germany and Italy...the three fascist ones). Or that Hitler was a Catholic himself and an altar boy and later professed to have been following the example of Jesus throwing the money-lenders out of the temple when he tried to rid Germany of the Jews...and thus gained the support of the German Christian middle class...

I love the way that factual history means nothing to religionists. Actually I love the way facts mean nothing to religionists. Or indeed "meaning", or "logic", or "truth" or...well, let's face it these shitehawks make up so much bollocks they might as well have their own language.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Sun May 25, 2008 3:49 pm

Logic, religion?

Ive never understood why religions dont just adapt themselves to fit in.

for example, instead of saying that Darwins theory is BS compared to creation theory.

why not just accept that Darwins theory is pretty spot on more or less and just claim that god designed evoloution, he started it?

Not sure how you explain to catholics that being gay isnt a sin mind you...

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Sun May 25, 2008 5:06 pm

Well that's what the Catholics *have* done - Pope Pius XII (the same one who was a big fan of Hitler, mind) was the one who accepted evolution (with the aforementioned caveats) into Catholic doctrine. Which was an incredibly revolutionary step, to be honest. This was 1949, so maybe the whole Hitler thing taught him a lesson. Still, since persecuting Jews is off the cards, because we've learned that eugenics is bad, persecuting gays is fine. Yay Catholics.

It's the American fundamentalists who are the worst of them though (well apart from the fundamentalist muslims, who are on a par) - who cares if we **** up the planet? it's only 6000 years old, God can make a new one!

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Sun May 25, 2008 10:37 pm

Emveekins wrote:It's a rare thing indeed for a religious institution to admit they were wrong.

This is one of the things I occasionally like about Mormonism. Centralized authority means that someone has the reins for the entire religion, and quite often, surprisingly, that someone is not a complete nut. Autonomous clergy like that within Protestant Christianity and Islam lends itself to nutty pastors and imams getting all the press.

For all his weirdness, I can't imagine Yaya (who seems to have split the board) is a "nutty Muslim." But if there were a caliph who spoke with the voice of God, not that historically Muslims have been able to agree on that subject either, it might go a long way toward identifying "mainstream" and "radical" the same way we have "mainstream" and "fundamentalist" Mormons divided by organization. Also, the caliph could speak with people like the Pope and represent all of Islamdom.

The Dover trial was just a total dog-and-pony show. Sad thing is, Michael Behe seemed to be a genuinely good guy who had a genuinely scientific concern. But the irreduceable complexity is not exactly something that a ton of research can back up. And so much was weighing against, particularly in the realm of neuroscience, where the brain is a messy layer cake that has been designed to do different things over time.

Worst of all to me, though, is this notion that we need to discuss religion and philosophy in science class. And that's what ID comes down to. It's not a scientific theory at all, it's a philosophic one. "There are forces acting upon us that may be intelligent." How do you measure faith with a scientific method? How do you dissect it? And why do we think our children are too stupid to figure out a relationship between science and faith for themselves?