Great. One more reason for me to hate the Catholic Church. (not individual Catholics tho')

OK I am too lazy to bother to see if the previous acceptance of evolution had the weight of Papal Infalibility. So... if the policy - dogma - teaching on evolution changes that means at least one Pope was not infallible.

Pretty tight reasoning huh?

So call me a regular Gallileo.

Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence.

I've always felt the same about beer. How on earth did we ever figure that one out?

Heckuva legacy you're buidling for yourself there, Pope Joe!

Yea, yea, all the caveats apply about judging him before he even says a word, but I've read enough of his writings to see this coming. And I'm not real hopeful that any progressive change will come to the Church during his tenure. (reference to "Joe" is of his name prior to his papacy)

Remember: always take off 20 IQ points when the MSM discusses theology. Take of 50 points when it's Catholic theology. Catholic teaching on creation is extremely nuanced. ID guys have interesting things to say about problems with Darwin. What they don't have yet, from what I can see, is a coherent account of what it is they are attempting: science or philosophy. I'm extremely skeptical that the Church is going to "embrace" anything here. I think the Church will basically say, "Yes, we can make a place at the table for these voices and see what they contribute to the conversation" (which is far more than the "Shut up, he explained" science establishment in the US can tolerate). But that will be about it. There's not going to be any "fundamental shift" in Catholic teaching, because Catholic teaching already affirms a) that God made all things seen and unseen (which is what ID is lurching toward affirming, though it doesn't specifically name You Know Who as the Guy in charge of ID) and b) that secondary causes participated in that process (which is the most evolutionary theory can say before it starts intruding on theology with atheistic materialist claims that secondary causes are really primary causes).

the catholic church ignoring inconvenient scienctific truths in favor of superstition ... say it isn't so.

"Scientists" once called Pluto a planet, so they are not infallible either.

Thomas1, what a weak observation on your part. By definition science is all about not assuming "infallibility". It is all about constantly retesting its theories in an never ending quest in search of the facts.

I doubt if the new pope will reject what the old pope said; generally speaking the Catholic Church tries to avoid that, as it interferes with the whole infallibility thing.

I suppose they could move more explicitly in a Teilhardist direction, basically saying that evolution is real, but evolution is directed by God as part of the plan. Teilhard was popular with a lot of dissident Catholic theologians back in the 70s.

"Scientists" once called Pluto a planet, so they are not infallible either.
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 28, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

The Bible says Pi=3.0, so its not infallible either.

Oh noes! what are we to do? We live in a universe where there is no ultimate infallible authority on anything! Does that make me a nihilist? Moral relativist?

I've always felt the same about beer. How on earth did we ever figure that one out?
Posted by: Red State Mike on August 28, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

Ben Franklin said "Beer is proof that God exists, and wants us to be happy."

To tell you the god's honest truth, that's about the only reason I still believe in God, these days. Maybe I should bring a keg of Guinness to the Vatican and discuss this with the Pope.

"ID guys have interesting things to say about problems with Darwin."

Interesting things like "When I use the word theory, it actually means hypothesis", as Michael Behe was forced to admit on the stand in the Kitzmiller case?

its the new dark ages.
.

"...some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence."

Um, yeah... and since mankind has now reached the heights and limits of understanding, the only logical explaination is that a supernatural, omnipotent being is behind the whole thing.

I will, however, question the intelligence of creating a universe full of of countless billions of planets and populating only one with "intelligent" life. Seems like an awful waste of time and, er... space.

If god were more like a CEO, he would have created the earth and the sun and then taken a 5-day weekend.

Maybe I should bring a keg of Guinness to the Vatican and discuss this with the Pope.
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on August 28, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

Oops! I forgot - Pope is German. That would probably be an insult. I guess Berliner Pilsner would be in order. (I much prefer Pilsners to Stouts anyway).

OBF, I refer you to Housman's classic lines,

"and malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to Man."

"I doubt if the new pope will reject what the old pope said; generally speaking the Catholic Church tries to avoid that, as it interferes with the whole infallibility thing."

This is the fourth time someone brought up "papal infallability" - FYI - the Pope is only "infallable" when speaking Ex Cathedra (matters of Church law) and only when he says he is speaking such . (to wit...no Pope has)

even though i know it is only fair, kevin, that you get a break now and then to do something fun,
or take a vacation, is it really fair to us, your readers.

look at the multiple great posts since your return,
and tell us, your readers, if we must learn to live without them.

i am being totally serious.

but also thanking you, i am , for your efforts and viewpoints and informative entries.

I also have to go on record here as saying that I've never tried an Italian Beer that didn't make me want to retch.

While I agree with Mark that this is probably much ado about nothing, if the papacy were to actually toss out evolution, as it were, and make common cause with the IDists, I predict schism.

Catholicism is one of the few popular religions in the US where theistic scientists generally do not feel as if they have to check their brains at the church door. If this were to change, they would leave in droves.

Time dust off that old inquisition play book. Get that room ready in the back of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva.

T1, Why should I care what S.A. posits? A scientific theory, again by definition, contains elements which are as yet unproven.

Yet, it seems to me that evolution is fact. The hypotheses on which the theory of evolution rests seem very strong. None of the arguments attacking it, when roundly considered hold water.

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 28, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Horseshit.

This is the fourth time someone brought up "papal infallability" - FYI - the Pope is only "infallable" when speaking Ex Cathedra (matters of Church law) and only when he says he is speaking such . (to wit...no Pope has)

Actually there have been two Ex Cathedra statements since the doctrine of papal infallibility was 1st expounded in the nineteenth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

I was surprised Catholics acknowledged evolution
since they still think the Earth is the center of the universe.

"Science" and "the truth" have an anti-Christian bias.

T1, put down the crack pipe.

"Science" and "the truth" have an anti-Christian bias.
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 28, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

Only to those paranoid maniacs who believe crap that's been made up, written down by power-mad zealots 3000 years ago, translated, retranslated, transcribed, and reinterpreted, and often intentionally perverted hundreds of times.

They are in church every Sunday. Their attendance makes them sun revolves around the earth believers. It also makes them followers of executioners of those who would challenge such beliefs.

As someone who is both Catholic and an adherent to this strange thing called natural science, can I just ask what is wrong with the Matt Santos view? I believe in natural selection through and through, that God refuses to interfere with the universe as any interference on his part, good or bad, will inherently infringe on free will. So no, I am not a believer in intelligent design. Nevertheless, I suppose it's perfectly reasonable to believe the universe's natural development has been intelligently guided, as reasonable as any other religious belief. But so long as it is not scientific, it has no place in science discourse. None at all.

And thank you, e, for your correct statement about papal infallibility. A specious religious concept if ever there was one (invented by a paranoid delusional pope), it has been oh so rarely invoked.

T1 (and the fake) touche. Although, T, you can get out in the weeds (by my point of reference, of course).

It's one possible explanation, OBF -- I thought "scientists" were all about constantly retesting their theories in an never-ending quest in search of the facts?
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 28, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Tell you what. I'll go write a perl script to re-test Pi about a zillion times. Tomorrow morning when I come back in, if it changes to 3.0, I'll let you know.

Thomas1: Robert Sungenis.

On the other hand, the Catholic view on evolution is hardly infallibly defined; in fact, there's no "Catholic view on evolution" at all. What Catholic theology does affirm is that the causes of natural phenomena can be purely contingent (i.e., no ID at all) without thereby denying God's action. God, in Aquinas's view, is not a proximate cause; God works at a different level of causality than, say, environmental shocks.

Doesn't the fact that some features of the universe are so complex that we cannot understand them (or in some cases never hope to outside of our distinct perpectives) argue for the exact opposite of what the ID creationists say it does? If it's so complex, how could an "intelligent being" have created it whole and functional? (Think space shuttle vs. commercial jets, as Feynman pointed out.)

Complexity is better understood as arising from incremental and cumulative changes over time...exactly what evolution (in a broad sense) suggests.

Nature would not exhibit the robustness that it does if it were the product of creation...flaws in the design process would be revealed in spectacular ways. Unless the reality we exist in is the product of successive "versions" by created by an omnipotent god honing his designs (which begins to sound more and more like evolution as you extend it outward), that is.

How would the higher being know to design the weak nuclear force to function in the range that it does? The electrostatic forces regulating protein contacting DNA? Did he just happen to guess right, or was it the product of experimentation?

Do the ID creationists think we're we still in a "beta" reality that might crash cataclysmically at a moments notice? Perhaps that's were the "rapture" or "apocalypse" ideas fit in...god dammit, it's all starting to make sense now!

If the pope is interested in anything, it is whether the ID mumbo jumbo makes enough sense to "sell" to the masses in the Age of Science and Enlightenment. He'll learn how to talk the talk, to obfuscate the issue by using science-sounding words that will buy him credibility to the uneducated general public.

Umm... shouldn't the Pope believe in some form of intelligent design? I'd imagine it's part of the job descrition to see God's hand in that sort of thing.

Putting ID in schools is hogwash, of course, but that's really what churches are fore, aren't they?

As much as I dislike ID, it seems even worse when it comes from a religious leader. If the Pope was advocating his own religion's view, I wouldn't agree, but that's his job. But, for the Pope to advocate ID seems to mean that he's willing to forego Catholic teaching, as long as it isn't replacled by science.

Well, the Guardian is a left-wing rag. The article merely speculates about what the Pope might do. Hopefully it won't play out that way.

Apologies for the spelling mistakes in the above post. Plees ignor anny similer errers inn thiis on.

Perl to perform math calcs?

I'm going to go vomit now.

1 Kings 7 says 30/10. Not 540/172.

Either your inputs are wrong (Bible is flawed), or the calculation is wrong (Reality is flawed). Which is it?

it shouldn't really surprise us that he's trying to sell mumbo jumbo pseudoscience either.

To call ID a pseudoscience is an insult to real pseudosciences, such as astrology and phrenology.

They must totally want me to just renounce Catholicism. I refuse to be a part of a faith that advocates a flat earth policy.
America's Least Wanted

First, I stated one thing there very poorly. That's not why I believe in natural selection; that's why I don't think there is a conflict between faith and believing in natural selection.

Second, as I said, it's "as reasonable as any other religious belief." Indeed, it shows no outward sign of conflicting with science, does it? Intelligent design's roots may be in creationism, which is pure bollocks, but ID itself is not the same as creationism. It can look exactly like natural selection.

As an atheist, I take it you find no faith reasonable. Fair enough. I have no problem with that. Faith is inherently unreasonable. That's the basic point of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. And, of course, Kierkegaard was devoutly religious. Defending faith is not something that can be done through empiricism; otherwise it would cease to be faith. You obviously know full well I can provide no scientific proof for faith in a god.

As for how interfering to cure cancer would interfere with free will, you have to think about it on the second order. The immediate impact bears no relationship, of course. But if someone notes a miraculous recovery and then abandons pursuit of scientific approaches to a cure, God has impacted the will of the researcher who gives up the cause.

Or perhaps God would only heal those whose cases have not yet been diagnosed. Well, he would have to ensure that someone who would have discovered it no longer does so. He thus impacts the will of the physician or child or parent or whoever might discover the cancer by removing a possible course of action from their futures.

Interference necessarily changes the experiment; that's a principle of science, which I would call rational study of the natural world. Since we are talking about the notion of God interfering in the natural world, the same principle applies.

Also, as for why we pray, I'll admit of myself that I only pray out of desperation. It's an act of hope ; desperation and hope are really two sides of the same coin, and that's what it comes down to. It's irrational, but so are both desperation and hope as such. If this attitude makes me a bad Catholic, that's fine. I've long given up being considered a good Catholic.

The notion that anything the pope does, says, thinks, or pontificates is so much as *relevant* to the intellectual world: two steps back indeed.

Much more so for the idiots being taught by idiots in the American educational system. Hell, putting ID in the curriculum is about the surest way I can think of to ensure that our kids DON'T learn it.

Perl to perform math calcs?
I'm going to go vomit now.
Posted by: Disputo on August 28, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

What do you want me to use?

Excel?

For all I know, Excel will claim it's 3.0 too.

Thomas - the units given were 10/30. Don't give me your bullshit conversion inaccuracy argument, or your bullshit "inner vs outer diameter" crap, I've heard it all before. Either the units are accurate, or they're not. If you want to fudge what the text says to make it work, that's your business. You can also fudge what it says about killing fags, or eating shrimp.

If the units are not accurate, the Bible is flawed. End of story.

I will, however, question the intelligence of creating a universe full of of countless billions of planets and populating only one with "intelligent" life. Seems like an awful waste of time and, er... space. raff

Awesome which one?

Now back to T1's first dumb comparison. Pluto as a planet (or not) is a definition. You really think that if the Pope changed the church dogma from natural selection to ID, a change in the reality of the Universe in the church's view that this is the same thing?

Nice double bank shot, Charlie. I like you it goes from "Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume some obscure rule of thumb for which to theirs no evidence" to "The phoenecians were right, the bible knows pie, but you anti-semites will never admit it."

I can post under a different name in every thread! Call me Sybil!

Serves me right for posting from a Unix command line.

Pope believes God created the world! Liberals outraged!

Bulletin coming up next: Karl Marx was a communist!

"Serves me right for posting from a Unix command line."

Wanna borrow Al's auto-posting perl script?

How long before the Vatican goes back to a literal interpretation of the Bible? Religion is a dead end in the evolution of human consciousness. A true awareness and attainment of our human potential is incompatible with wishful thinking.

Religion? Get Real!

A true awareness and attainment of our human potential is incompatible with wishful thinking.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08!

If you say so...

Hate to break it to you, Kevin, but there's nothing "bracing" about this so-called "news." The Guardian article is incomplete and misleading.

I second what Mark said way above in the comments. And take another 100 points off for discussions of Catholic theology in a British paper. Even the reputable British papers go a little loopy when they touch on Catholicism. Ghost of Guy Fawkes and all.

The Guardian article leaves out a couple facts that should defuse the panic about Church and evolution.

First, one of the invitees to this meeting with the Pope is president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Peter Schuster. Schuster is a very lapsed Catholic (a self-described agnostic). He thinks intelligent design is nonsense.

Second, Cardinal Schonburn, who got bamboozled by the Discovery Institute into writing the dunderheaded op-ed piece about evolution in the NY Times last year, has quietely backed away from that piece.

So this isn't a cabal of ID'ers meeting to plot the Church's alliance with creationism against science.

Oh, and the replacement for the head of the Vatican Observatory is another Jesuit whose views about science are most likely indistinguishable from the views of the retiring head.

There's nothing to see here, people. Please move along.

We'll have to see what the Vatican ultimately comes out with, but whatever it is, we shouldn't treat it like it's particulary big news. The basic belief in a deity -- a concerned, intelligent deity in the Christian mold -- is in and of itself a huge departure from science because it postulates a grand purpose in the universe. Once you've made this step -- whether you teach that God is fairly actively "directing" evolution or just letting nature take its course -- either way you're implying that there's a divine "intelligence" behind the "design" of creation. All Christians -- if they're worthy of the name and if they're honest with themselves -- ought to admit that they accept some form of "intelligent design" by default --- because they believe in this divine intelligence with a Purpose. A purely materialistic view of the cosmos explicitly rejects this notion of Purpose with a capital "p" but instead insists everything is accidental.

How many mutating bateria dance on the head of a pin, and why have they become resistant to Papal saliva?

Let's pretend there is doubt about evolution, rather than feed the hungry, help the poor, or mediate international disputes peacefully.

Ah, well. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Holy shit!

Is the Sun revolving around the earth again?

There can be a basis for an intelligent design without accepting the dogma of any specific religion. As many of us are acquainted with the concept of the "timekeeper" analogy, let's take that a little further to say that the cosmos as we know it operates on its own clock, not made (and probably not even interpreted well) by man. What we do know here is that life springs eternal, and death follows, and life springs eternal.........Doesn't matter if its people or billy goats. Just because we can figure out some of the complexities (like beer) isn't to say that the supreme explanation isn't beyond us define. I will always argue for out inability to understand the 'grander' scale of things ..... just look at our current state of affairs.

Just because the catholic church espouses a belief, isn't to say that it's wrong out of hand.

I think it's running on a clock, and I don't think we made that clock.

No, I don't believe it's wrong for us to try to change destructive behavior. Naturally, there will be disagreements about what that behavior is, which is the source of much conflict. But, again, the impact of people on one another is a far different thing from the impact of a god on people. When humans exercise their will to enhance or limit the potential exercise of will by others, they are acting within natural existence; natural law is the only thing that limits the will of every individual and collection of individuals. God's limitation or enhancing of our will would transcend natural law and, therefore, impede the natural universe.

Faith is belief without proof; that is the definition of it. Ergo, it isn't rationally proven. I won't say mine is necessarily a better guide than others. (I have a problem with the notion of polytheism only because the concept of gods with conflicting desires doesn't register with me intellectually, but I haven't thought enough about it to really decide. Aside from polytheism, I have no problem with any monotheistic or nontheistic religion.) I tend not to believe faith is something to be defended against other faiths or against nonfaith. It isn't to be defended by its adherents; it is to be embraced by us. Our only defense of our faith is our relishing in it.

This sounds odd, to be sure, but again, that's sort of Kierkegaard's point. I mention him so often because I was very uncomfortable with faith until I read Fear and Trembling. He (and I) readily accept that faith is absurd. It is its very absurdity that is its own salvation. But the very nature of the absurd is that it really can't be defended. It can only be celebrated or denied. (I think Existentialist Christianity pisses off both believers and nonbelievers. Oh well.)

And, re. prayer: the reason I don't stop is, as I said, for me it's an act of desperation, something that is in and of itself not rational. I don't pray when I'm rationally solving a problem. Is it wrong for other people to do so? Hell, one part of my liberalism is my total lack of desire to tell other people how to exercise their faith or lack thereof. For me, yeah, I guess it would be wrong. But it's not something I rationally sit and decide to do. Desperation is irrational. The only rational prayer I could pray, I suppose, would be to thank God for the existence of the universe in which we are free to live. In fact, I should do that. But prayers of request? Yeah, I guess if I were rationally thinking about it, I'd stop.

No, I don't think prayer is wrong under Christian teaching. Rather, I think most probably that I don't fit in with Christian teaching very well. I nonetheless consider myself a Christian, but I also don't tend to feel very at home in organized religion. (Thus the only time I have attended mass in the last several years has been with my mother. I know she is glad to have me there, and I know she feels strengthened by communal worship, and I am happy to be a part of that for her sake. Alone, it feels like a wasted hour.) I tend to think of my being Catholic the same way a lot of people think of themselves as Jews; they're born into it and grew up with its traditions and therefore have some love for that heritage, whether they are religious or not.

As for an intelligent design not in conflict with science, here's my best shot: God created the universe with certain natural properties. Those natural properties favored certain organisms at some times and others at other times. Within those properties (laws), weather patterns, parasitic species, and other natural phenomena affected ecosystems in a variety of ways. Those favorable and unfavorable conditions, those shifting ecosystems, enabled the evolution of various species. God's laws enabled evolution to occur as it did; he intelligently designed natural law itself. (The "origin" of natural law, by the way, is the very reason that Nietzsche thinks science is just another extension of religion and why he rejects both in the same breath.) Then he got out of the way and things happened.

Perhaps this isn't really intelligent design. If that's the case, so be it. But even if God's hand pushed everything all the way down the line, I don't think that means science classes should embrace that. It's obviously and totally unscientific. So long as there is a naturalistic explanation, and so long as any and all forms of ID are unscientific, they have no place in scientific discussions.

Wow, these responses keep getting longer. I should have just written my own post about this and linked you to it. But thank you for the challenges, Atheist. Some people hate having religious discussions. I love them. As someone who believes in God but lives and thinks in a largely secular way, it's really fun to exercise this part of my brain. I didn't intend to go here at all. For what it's worth, I think Sparko's comment makes the best possible point. Shame on the Church for wasting time on this or, as you point out, Atheist, doing it in a closed-door meeting.

I'm sorry if my answers are frustrating and/or incomplete. Sorry if I'm still not understanding what you're after. Feel free to keep 'em coming.

Atheist:

*Please* don't get taken in by the breathless accounts in the papers. This isn't a "closed door meeting" to formulate Church policy on evolution. It's basically a reunion of Ratzinger with his former theology students; they get together and think big thoughts. There's nothing official about it, that's why the meeting isn't public.

Catholic teaching is fully consistent with the science of evolutionary biology, and that won't be changing anytime soon.

I'm a lefty, so if you think that's just my wishful thinking, take it from the (very conservative Scalia-loving) magazine First Things.

First Things article

Faith is belief without proof; that is the definition of it.

Which is what cracks me up about the so-called "Bible-believing" sects, who get all huffy when biblical inerrancy comes up - cuz gosh! if the Bible isn't 100% perfect, then that means God might not be real! Oh noes!
(when in fact, the reason they can't accept scriptural imperfection, is because then they have to give up their justification for Uterus Control, Gay Bashing, and all their other S&M-derived religious fantasies.)

I love seeing the left get all smugly superior when it comes to religion butting heads with science. Then in the next breath they insist that races don't exist.

jhupp,

Don't bother arguing w/ Atheist about this. He's intolerant, self-righteous, fanatical, utterly convinced of the rightness of his own arbitrary notions about the world, every phrase you could possibly use to describe religious zealots. Trust me, he's not worth the time. I know from experience.

As for the Pope, I highly doubt anything will come of this. Evolutionary theory is pretty entrenched in Catholic theology and the Pope's advisors on scientific questions (who are scientists as well as priests) have been openly hostile to I.D. in the Discovery Institute sense. I suspect what they're talking about is re-emphasasizing the Catholic belief that the universe functions according to natural laws of God's design. While I have no opinion on that, as a rationalist I see nothing in modern science to suggest that it's not true. It remains as ever an open question, for philosophers and theologians to debate.

Sorry Jason, I'm more of Armand Leroi fan.

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Leroi/

But really, it's so interesting your reaction: immediate revulsion and inability to engage the argument, much like the much despised religious right when someone challenges the power of Jeebus.

The Left has its own religion, the Blank Slate, and there's as much scientific proof for it as there is for Jeebus coming back from the dead.

The crux of the problem with Intelligent Design theory is that 99% of its lay advocates are ignorant morons.

I'll accept and publicly honor Christian doctrine once I'm allowed to re-construct Stonehenge on public property during the holiday season, so Druids and other practicioners of nature-based religions can in turn pay public homage to the Winter Solstice.

How can the Pope support ID?? The Pope is chief representative on earth for a very specific supernatural entity- the God of the Church of Rome. Not the God of any other versions of Christianity, not the God of the Jews, or the Allah of the Muslims, even though they trace back to the same monotheistic item. And not the universe-creating god/s of the Mayas, Hindus, or Zulus. ID can't identify the supernatural entity it postulates, because if it does, it becomes Creationism.
By supporting a theory that goes as far as having a supernatural entity but declines to identify it, the Pope would be admitting to doubt about the identity of God. He, of all the people on the planet, couldn't do this- it would be like the CEO of CocaCola spruiking for Pepsi. The Pope's God HAS to be the God of the Church of Rome, not just some fuzzy neo-Creationist construct.

On the contrary, Xeynon, whether his intentions are to bait me or to engage in serious discussion, I've quite enjoyed this. However, Atheist, if you're interested in my response, would you mind sending me an email at the address on my blogger profile? Unless other people have a deeply vested interest in reading more of my philosophical meanderings, I'd rather just take this off the comments page to email. I'm tired and it's going to take me awhile to formulate a decent response to what is actually a very tough question. Suffice to say, it's actually much more complicated than not caring about the truth, which is hardly my attitude. (I was a philosophy major for a reason, sir.)

OSF is exactly right about the right wing religious zealots, though. Their insecurity about Biblical imperfection strikes me as wholly antithetical to the very concept of faith. God might well not be real. Faith necessitates that acceptance without full, airtight proof. Hell, their very own beloved Bible offers that exact criticism of the Apostle Thomas. The only reason they can't possibly allow scripture to err is because that would reduce their justification for authoritarian social constructs. It's ironic that they are so attached to those constructs, given the reason Luther left the Catholic Church in the first place.

I've always thought of the creation of the universe as a process put into motion by some God child's playing around with a chemistry set. But after watching for a while he got bored and stuck it in his closet for eternity.

Don't you think an omnipotent and benevolent God, if such a thing exists and created the world and its natural laws, would have done a better job?
Posted by: GOP on August 29, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

If God is Omnipotent, omnicient, and benevolent?

Evil exists, so He either isn't powerful enough to do anything about it, doesn't know about it, or doesn't care.

Jason wrote:

"Ridicule is the only way to answer you because you..."

That's pretty telling, and exactly what the religion types say. They can't argue the actual facts with atheists since they don't have the facts on their side, so they make fun of them.

If you could make an actual argument that races don't exist, or that there aren't significant differences between races in average IQ, temperament, etc., you'd argue the facts. But that argument is already won, so all you have left, as you admit, is ridicule.

"Racism," btw, is merely the natural, universal, biologically healthy tendency of a human being to care more about someone who is genetically closer to him than about someone who is further away.

Anyway, here's some reading for you on whether there are differences between human groups from the guy who mapped the human genome, Craig Venter:

"Revealing the genetic basis of personality and behavior will create societal conflicts...We attribute behaviors in other mammalian species to genes and genetics but when it comes to humans we seem to like the notion that we are all created equal, or that each child is a "blank slate". As we obtain the sequences of more and more mammalian genomes including more human sequences, together with basic observations and some common sense, we will be forced to turn away from the politically correct interpretations, as our new genomic tool sets provide the means to allow us to begin to sort out the reality about nature or nurture. In other words, we are at the threshold of a realistic biology of humankind.

It will inevitably be revealed that there are strong genetic components associated with most aspects of what we attribute to human existence including personality subtypes, language capabilities, mechanical abilities, intelligence, sexual activities and preferences, intuitive thinking, quality of memory, will power, temperament, athletic abilities, etc. We will find unique manifestations of human activity linked to genetics associated with isolated and/or inbred populations."

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_12.html#venter

In case you don't understand that last sentence, Jason, it means "races are biologically different in important ways".

Sorry, Jase. You and the Holy Rollers have ridicule; our side has science. Call me a racist, call me a heretic, call me an enemy of the Soviet Union; I'm a truth-teller,and that's the important thing.

the Onion had a great article about this: "God Diagnosed With Bi-Polar Disorder"

Ah, well. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

If only you guys would.

....or maybe a cosmic ant farm....

If the Universe is so complex that it had to be created by someone (God), who created that someone? Or is it blasphemy to ask this question?

The answer is simple. Man created God, not the other way around.

. . . or, we've got to re-think our definitions of "evil", "omnipotent", "omnicient", and "benevolent".

(most fundies I've debated on this with tend to re-define "benevolent" and "evil". In fact, "evil" often becomes "good").

Jesus Crap! are you guys still arguing about this? It's simple: Intelligent Design is wrong because obviously God is an idiot... He created you in his own image, right? That's pretty telling. Besides, look at His MySpace page. He's only got two friends. Why? because He's a dumbass. Just look at the crappy music He lists in His interests.

No Jason, I'm not calling you a holy roller. I'm saying that people on the left who mock religion's obvious scientific inconsistencies are raving hypocrites, since their religion (the Blank Slate/there are no biological differences between racial groups) is just as non-scientific as a devout Christian's (or Jew's, or Muslim's etc.).

Did you read the Venter piece? I bet not, it's too scary -- like a devout Christian having to read Darwin.

Good one, Jason. Fair enough, Atheist. Check back here in like a day and a half and I may have something for you.

I'm saying that people on the left who mock religion's obvious scientific inconsistencies are raving hypocrites, since their religion (the Blank Slate/there are no biological differences between racial groups) is just as non-scientific as a devout Christian's (or Jew's, or Muslim's etc.).
Posted by: Snappy on August 29, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

Please. When Scientists can't agree on something, they have a conference, and try to come to a consensus. When there's enough evidence for one view, that view inevitably becomes accepted as dogma - until more evidence becomes available that shoots it down.

When Religious Fundie Extremists can't agree on something, they pull out the swords. When evidence shows they're wrong, they pull out swords. When they're proven wrong, they pull out swords. When they're standing over a bloody corpse, they say they're the religion of peace and love, and that the corpse had to die because it was God's will.

Atheist,

Just because I was nice to you at the end of our previous exchange, doesn't mean I like you or respect your position. Haven't you ever heard of civility, taking the high road, the notion that if you don't have something nice to say to or about someone, don't say anything at all? If not, take this as an object lesson.

I'm hesitant to say I *DISLIKE* you, because I don't actually know you. For all I know this might all be an act and you might be a swell, open-minded guy who's civil and tolerant and has people skills in everyday life, rather than the self-righteous, mule-headed, small-minded bully you act here. Plenty of atheists are good people. But I know from previous experience with you that at least in regards to your online persona, all of the descriptors from my early post apply to you, and it is hardly controversial to say debating with such people is a waste of time. I was merely warning jhupp what sort of "debate" he could expect from you.

In case you don't understand that last sentence, Jason, it means "races are biologically different in important ways".

I must have missed the term "race" in Ventner's words. Maybe there's a problem with my monitor.

Or maybe you're just putting words in his mouth as part of a self-serving agenda.

When he mentioned "inbred populations" I just assumed he was talking about your family.

when has the left denied the existance of race? speaking for myself, I certainly tend to discount race as an etiology for ... say ... IQ discrepancies, mostly because its proponents are invariably insecure white non-scientist males with piss-poor research methodology.

In general, I would actually say I embrace race and diversity. You can take your "race-denying" strawman and shove it up your ass.

Plenty of atheists are good people.

Yes. And plenty of us can sing and dance!

Osama writes:

"When Scientists can't agree on something, they have a conference, and try to come to a consensus."

Not when the subject is taboo. Then they compile their research under the PC media radar, and they certainly don't hold conferences about it.

Nads writes: "when has the left denied the existance of race?"

OK, great! I'll take it that the left now concedes that race exists.

And: "I certainly tend to discount race as an etiology for ... say ... IQ discrepancies, mostly because its proponents are invariably insecure white non-scientist males with piss-poor research methodology."

Yes, like this white male:

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050922/brainevolution.shtml

Trex wrote:"I must have missed the term "race" in Ventner's words. Maybe there's a problem with my monitor.Or maybe you're just putting words in his mouth as part of a self-serving agenda.
When he mentioned "inbred populations" I just assumed he was talking about your family."

Semi-cue, but no, "inbred populations" or "isolated populations" is what scientists say for "race" when they want other scientists but not the P.C. police to understand what they're saying. If you read Venter's piece, the context isn't hard to understand even if you're unaware of the P.C.-avoiding lingo.

Brave New World coming, my friends...

The nature of the world as revealed by modern science, and especially by evolutionary biology, is random and chaotic, indifferent to suffering, full of false-starts and dead-ends, with no sign of purpose or direction or goal.

This statement is very questionable, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, these notions are hardly the discovery of modern science you make them out to be - as long as people have had the capacity for abstract thought, they appear to have realized that the world is chaotic, indifferent to suffering, sometimes seems directionless, etc. The ancient Greeks had written extensively about the idea of a chaotic, indifferent universe 2,500 years ago, and even conceived of the idea of evolution. But I would go even further and say that the idea predates rationalist thought itself. If you read a little mythology (of any culture), you'll see the same debate we're having being played out. Of course, many so-called rationalists are too busy scoffing at mythology to read it with thoughtfully.

Secondly, these are all metaphysical claims. Science tells us a great deal about how the world works, but not the first thing about why. You can just as easily correlate scientific findings with a teleological, theistic metaphysics as you can with a directionless, meaningless, atheistic one. The great metaphysical questions simply have not been answered, and people who indicate that science has done otherwise are abusing both science and philosophy. People like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould are great scientists, but rank amateurs as philosophers. Their philosophical arguments are highly flawed and easily challenged, but because they are draped in the veneer of eminent science, they carry a respectability they ought not to on the merits.

Don't you think an omnipotent and benevolent God, if such a thing exists and created the world and its natural laws, would have done a better job?

I have no idea what omnipotence signifies, and no notion of what is ultimately of benefit to the universe, so in short, the answer is not necessarily. I am hesitant to trust my own flawed, limited, human consciousness on such questions. Just because we cannot empirically prove the existence of purpose or benevolence in the universe, doesn't remotely mean they aren't there. It's very difficult to ascribe purpose to actions or events based solely on a description of the actions or events themselves. Turning on the stove is purposeless and potentially dangerous if it's the random whim of a madman. But if I want to make a pot of tea, it is a constructive act driven by purpose. The same may very well hold true of evolution on a cosmic scale. If God intended the eventual outcome of producing a certain kind of creature (for the sake of argument, intelligent life), then quite possibly it shows purpose. Whether God exists, and whether or not evolution might ultimately be leading to some end seen only by a Deity or deities, are questions ENTIRELY beyond the purview of science. So while I have trouble answering your question, I find it of little relevance in addressing the question of faith in God.

Semi-cue, but no, "inbred populations" or "isolated populations" is what scientists say for "race" when they want other scientists but not the P.C. police to understand what they're saying. If you read Venter's piece, the context isn't hard to understand even if you're unaware of the P.C.-avoiding lingo.
Posted by: Snappy

christ, but you're an ignorant little shit. Inbred population refers to the accumulation of haplotype blocks and recessives due to generations of backcrossing or intercrossing. This prevents normal diversification of the genetic architecture.

Isolated populations refer to groups which are kept apart from mixing with other nearby groups (even if they would otherwise be considered the same race), thus resulting in a similar accumulation of shared haplotypes, and lack of genetic diversity relative to an outbred population.

Certain genetic studies are easier to perform in these populations; certain diseases are ONLY present in these populations (Ashkenazi Jews, eg). There's likely not a vast scientific conspiracy or double-speak regarding the PC-ness of our vocabulary.

You're projecting your insecurity onto the "left," and are simply verifying your scienctific illiteracy.

"inbred populations" or "isolated populations" is what scientists say for "race" when they want other scientists but not the P.C. police to understand what they're saying. If you read Venter's piece, the context isn't hard to understand even if you're unaware of the P.C.-avoiding lingo.

Really? Is that so? I guess that explains these remarks by Venter:

Dr. J. Craig Venter, president of Celera Genomics, the company that recently mapped the human genome, recently said of race and biology, "It is disturbing to see reputable scientists and physicians . . . categorizing things in terms of race."

I don't think he could have been more clear. In fact, Venter is even proposing to doctors to try and stop thinking in terms of race, i.e. "skin color" when making diagnoses, as inherited diseases simply don't limit themselves to one pigment group or localized population.

So you're left with claiming that the guy who mapped the genome is blatantly lying and has a secret agenda where you and he meet and gigglingly plot the details for your "Brave New World."

I rather think that you're simply misuing his research to serve your agenda, much like other infamous groups have done in the past.

It just seemed bizarre that you mutated from civility and respect in your last post of the last thread, to ad-hominem-spewing belligerence in your first post of this thread, apparently for no reason.

"Ad-hominem-spewing belligerence"? Geez, I didn't think of that way. Quite the contrary. Debating you IS a waste of time, for all the reasons I enumerated, which, stripped of any inflammatory connotations, are basically the conclusions I've drawn about you based on observation. With complete clarity and coolheadedness, I can say that I have never had any intellectual exchange with you, nor seen you have any intellectual exchange with others, that was anything other than utterly unproductive. Furthermore, it's clear to me that you don't even understand that there might BE limitations on your own knowledge or rationality, much less realize what those limits are, so trying to explain to you why you are such a poor debater is worthless as well. I've reach the point in my life that I realize that there are certain people who too dull or tiring to be worth talking to, and certain people whom I haven't found have earned my respect but who are too harmless to be worthy of my contempt. I don't know how to say this, but with no offense intended, you fall into both categories.

In case that last quote wasn't clear enough for you:

"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corp. in Rockville, Md.

http://www.augsburg.edu/education/edc210/race-myth.html

Venter's own words show you to be simply full of shit.

Yes, like this white male:
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050922/brainevolution.shtml
Posted by: Snappy

Well ... yeah, exactly my point. It takes an Asian-American researching the evolution of brain size to demonstrate geographic differences in brain gene expression very accurately reflects the genetic diversity expected in an Out-of-Africa model.

"The team also observed geographic differences. For haplogroup D of ASPM, they found that it occurs more frequently in Europeans and surrounding populations, including North Africans, Middle Easterners and South Asians, and at a lower incidence in East Asians, New World Indians and sub-Saharan Africans. For microcephalin, the researchers found that haplogroup D is more abundant in populations outside of sub-Saharan Africa."

... there is NO mention made of correlation of gene expression and IQ, likely because:

"Lahn and his colleagues stress these studies only examine two genes, and that the genetic variations within a population often are almost as great as the differences between groups.

... thus precluding any conclusions regarding race-based differences in IQ. Furthermore, the genes discussed affect brain size and function, but there are acknowledged problems with correlation between these parameters and IQ:

"A series of studies suggest that there is some correlation between brain size and intelligence, but with some exceptions. Although, on average, a man’s brain is 3 to 4 percent larger than a woman’s, both sexes score similarly on IQ tests."

... again, you're simply demonstrating either scientific illiteracy or a deliberate misinterpretation of valid data ... possibly because of personal insecurities, like a small penis, or something.

"One step forward, two steps back."

No, no, no. That's not how the Holy Trinity works. One step forward, three steps back.

Yo dude. The Pope leads an organization that got Galileo wrong. Completely wrong.

Galileo 50, Catholic's 0.

Galileo won hands down.

Don't worry what dimwit Pope thinks, or anyone else in that organization.

If they couldn't get Galileo right, it's impossible they got anything else right about the world.

They never have and they never will.

Galileo WAS the test.

They failed it.

"Whether God exists, and whether or not evolution might ultimately be leading to some end seen only by a Deity or deities, are questions ENTIRELY beyond the purview of science."

You make this statement true purely by the way you frame it. An "end seen only by a Deity or deities" is beyond the purview of anyone: scientist, philosopher, pope, manson... anyone. The questions of whether God exists and whether evolution might be leading to some end, are entirely within the purview of anyone who cares to attempt an answer.

Trex,

Note the year of the piece you cite (2002). The genome had just been mapped and Venter was scared of getting eaten by the PC wolves if he didn't spin things right.

Here's what he has to say in 2006:

"From our initial analysis of the sequence of the human genome, particularly with the much smaller than expected number of human genes, the genetic determinists seemed to have clearly suffered a setback. After all, those looking for one gene for each human trait and disease couldn't possibly be accommodated with as few as twenty-odd thousand genes when hundreds of thousands were anticipated. Deciphering the genetic basis of human behavior has been a complex and largely unsatisfying endeavor due to the limitations of the existing tools of genetic trait analysis particularly with complex traits involving multiple genes.

All this will soon undergo a revolutionary transformation."

"...Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence..."

Ah yes, inadequate minds needing a crutch because they can`t grasp the more complex things

Sounds like Mr. Bush - "It`s hard work being El Presidente !"

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day," - Thomas Jefferson

Nads, it doesn't "take an Asian-American" to research anything in particular. Henry Harpending, Greg Cochran, etc. do just fine.

You can't cite Lewontin's Fallacy ("genetic variations within a population often are almost as great as the differences between groups.") as anything, Lahn was just forced to say it to fend of the PC media. Lahn has now removed himself from studying racial issues in genomics because of these PC thugs, but it took them months to get him to back down. Next scientist they have to persecute will take even longer, and the one after that they won't be able to take down.

It's perverse to have Lahn recite Lewontin's fallacy and then cite it as proof that it's true. It's like the Catholics forcing Galileo to admit a geocentric universe, then cite Galileo's "belief" as proof that it's true.

Xeynon,

"as long as people have had the capacity for abstract thought, they appear to have realized that the world is chaotic, indifferent to suffering, sometimes seems directionless, etc."

I don't want to seem to be siding with you against my fellow "Atheist," but I think the foregoing statement is dead-on.

It is my contention that, contrary to recent attempts to prove that religion is somehow embedded in the human psyche, we are in fact born with an innate awareness of the chaotic, indifferent nature of existence. Religion, then, is nothing more or less than a coping mechanism, a way of shielding ourselves from the innate truths that haunt us all...a tattered security blanket that we continue to cling to long after we should have outgrown it.

Nads, try this article.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050922/brainevolution.shtml

This is what the PC police went after Lahn on -- proof that the human brain is STILL evolving, and that it didn't stop evolving 50,000 years ago when homo sapiens first left Africa.

That's the same URL you posted earlier, slick.

Snappy ... you're getting your ass handed to you ... and I don't mind saying so, myself.

your argument that geneticists are catering to some PC police is completely, utterly, totally unsubstantiated.

It seems unlikely, based on your postings, that YOU, of all people, have somehow arrived at an epiphany which has eluded so many others who are clearly smarter. ... and understand the science they reference.

f3 >"...A purely materialistic view of the cosmos explicitly rejects this notion of Purpose with a capital "p" but instead insists everything is accidental."

Horse shit so try another function key

this is like shooting fish in a barrel

"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought." - Albert von Szent-Gyorgyi

Why all the suffering? Why all the randomness? Why all the inefficiency? Why all the wasted time?

It's just a vain attempt to illustrate how stupid conservativism is. Unfortunately, 49.6% of us just don't "get it" no matter how many times or how vividly it's demonstrated. *sigh*.

This is what the PC police went after Lahn on -- proof that the human brain is STILL evolving, and that it didn't stop evolving 50,000 years ago when homo sapiens first left Africa.
Posted by: Snappy on August 29, 2006 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, so let me know when SCIENTISTS start strapping on suicide belts, or driving truck bombs into buildings, or trumping up false WMD charges over this.

(not so) Snappy >"..."genetic variations within a population often are almost as great as the differences between groups."..."

Incorrect

"...genetic variations within a population are greater than genetic variations between populations..." - Mary Claire King

try another twist of reality to suit your dimwitted thoughts

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, and a hell of heaven." - John Milton

As a Jesuit-educated ex-Catholic, I ask people not to conflate the Catholics with the fundamentalists on this one. I can't imagine the Catholic Church denying the mechanisms science uncovers. It will just restate that whatever mechanisms science finds, no matter how deep and how complex, in fact precisely because they are deep and complex, those mechanisms themselves are God's creation.
To me a God who could set off a Big Bang (or create an evolving, cascading series of them according to some new proposals) and have that wind up evolving into human beings is way more impressive than a God who four something thousand years ago creates the finished product. It is like the difference between a triple bank shot in pool vs. picking the ball up in your hand and putting it in the pocket yourself.
Pope Benedict still faces the same dilemna: He can have a Catholic Latin America or he can have the celibate priesthood, but he can't have both.

I want to know what caused the hidden universe to "splat" into our universe and where the material for both of these universes came from.

Nads wrote:

"your argument that geneticists are catering to some PC police is completely, utterly, totally unsubstantiated."

Just like your comment earlier about leftists never denying race, eh? Anyway, I guess you can explain this:

"Last September, Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others.

It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country's most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. "It's getting too controversial," he says.

Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html?mod=blogs

Nads, don't miss this graf of the wsj article:

"The 37-year-old Dr. Lahn says his research papers, published in Science last September, offered no view on race and intelligence. He personally believes it is possible that some populations will have more advantageous intelligence genes than others. And he thinks that "society will have to grapple with some very difficult facts" as scientific data accumulate. Yet Dr. Lahn, who left China after participating in prodemocracy protests, says intellectual "police" in the U.S. make such questions difficult to pursue."

--Snappeh!

So you concede that Lahn has no actual data supporting the idea that some races will have more advantageous intelligence ... just something he thinks.

That's fine ... as you've clearly demonstrated, opinions are like assholes, and everyone is allowed to have one. Because ALL you've quoted thus far, wrt race and intelligence, is opinion. Noa ctual data, definately no science.

... and you're willing to set up this entire, ridiculous strawman of leftists denying race based on this?

You are one pathetically projecting motherfucker ... I feel sorry for you since you seem to think you actually understand the science involved.

Thomas1, the links you gave for the explanation of pi gives a bunch of assumptions to get the correct value of pi. This isn't science - you can't change to assumptions to force the correct result. Science is based on close observation and proof, which evolution clearly is. To say, "I think gravity could be caused by giant turtles at the center of the Earth" isn't a scientific theory - it's wild speculation. Intelligent design is wild speculation. Who says it has to be one god? Could it be two gods? Or 10 gods? The "watch in the desert" theory allows for the possibility of many architects. Are you willing to accept many gods?

Oh, there's plenty of science on race and IQ, Nads old boy. I was just rebutting your claim that there's no PC police intimidating scientists on genetic/race stuff. Tell that to Bruce Lahn.

Here's yer race & IQ science:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html

The swelling wave is coming, Nads. And, as Lahn says, society is going to have to grapple with some inconvenient facts.

The swelling wave is coming, Nads. And, as Lahn says, society is going to have to grapple with some inconvenient facts.
Posted by: Snappeh!

Trust me, ignoramus ... this is my field. The last thing I need is some murray-spewing, racist pissant trying to teach me the significance of genetics and/or genomic technology.

The actual findings in Lahn's papers reflected evolution of 2 genes which appear to be involved in brain size, and likely were 2 of the genes involved in our speciation from a more primitive brain. The current geographic spread of the polymorphisms described say absolutely NOTHING about intelligence ... or even brain size, as Lahn admitted at the time of the actual release of the papers.

criticisms of lahn within the scientific community occurred because he appears to have overstated the significance of his findings, and this is an area where it is IMPERATIVE that we not over-interpret the actual data. ... Most likely because they are subject to misinterpretation by scientific illiterates, such as yourself or murray, who simply need an excuse for their racism.

Lahn admitted at the time of publication that there was no data supporting, and no inference regarding intelligence, should be made. In subsequent talks, he appears to be over-selling his findings and postulating an unsupported relationship to intelligence.

disputo wrote:

"Catholicism is one of the few popular religions in the US where theistic scientists generally do not feel as if they have to check their brains at the church door. If this were to change, they would leave in droves."
______________

I agree with disputo here. The tradition of the Catholic Church has been to seek accommodation with science, rather than opposing it. And, as even Tassot indicates, that remains Pope Benedict's orientation. When asked how his ideas had been received, he replied that the Pope's response was "a blessing for our members and encouraging us to continue our contacts with the scientific world. He didn't say anything about the idea of launching a debate."

It's hard to imagine the Pope coming to any conclusion without the consensus of his own Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which has firmly accepted evolutionary theory. The Catholic Church has always been aided by its belief in a non-literal Bible. (And papal infallibility has nothing to do with how the Church accepts scientific theories.) Even Tassot claims that he isn't a creationist, which is what the ID people really are behind their gonzo, pseudo-scientific language.

I suspect the intent of this discussion within the Church is ensure that people like Tassot don't feel that their ideas are dismissed out of hand. In any case, the Church's official position is that one is free to accept the theory of evolution or not. Whatever Tassot and his friends believe, the Church will have no reason to change that position.

I'm amazed, ney, appalled, that nobody has brought up the creationist's/IDer's mantra that evilution would violate the 2d law of thermodynamics. Has that really and truly gone by the wayside?

Oh my god (the same one that the pope is praying to).
While many of my countrymen think that a german pope is a huge honor for Germany, I think quite the contrary is true. I was against this stubborn reactonary from the very start. I would have preferred someone from latin america. And imho the history of idiological decisions by the new pope shows that I was right in my doubts about Ratzinger. I just hope that it won't become a new talking point that Benedict is such a concrete head because he is a typical German. He really isn't. Even before the election, he was the most right wing extremist of the catholic church here. And with his ideas he belongs to a fringe group of our society. I really wish he was Italian.

The evolutionary process is just the opposite of random. Mutation is random, natural selection is very definitely not. That's like saying that the winner of a foot race is random. Try reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

"Catholic intellectual"...perhaps an oxymoron? I'm biased, of course, due to my belief that organized religion (not spiritualism or FAITH, mind you) has done more to set back intellectualism than nearly any other organization. Long ago I realized that when people stand out there calling themselves Catholic, Christian (some even believe these can't co-exist), Jewish, whatever and still "pick and choose" what they wish to believe and or follow of the tenets of that particular group they are HYPOCRITES and THAT should be their religion! I'd like all Catholics that do NOT use birth control to please step over the line right now. Just for one tiny example.

if the papacy were to actually toss out evolution, as it were, and make common cause with the IDists, I predict schism

Well Disputo, I’ll watch with some interest, but I have an uneasy feeling about this Pope. He seems to think a smaller, purer (ideologically pure?) church would be a good thing. Looking at his writings, he definitely seems in the past to have allowed political ideology influence his thinking.

Haven't read this whole thread - I assume we're getting all the boilerplate.

Here's myu question: why can't evolution be intelligent design? Why can't a faithful Christian believe that the Almighty created a system where life would evolve? If somebody wrote an X-generation programming language where the language itself somehow "observed" programs and modified itself, we would all think that was an astounding advance. It would be, in effect, evolution by intelligent design. Why are they considered mutually exclusive?

A faithful Christian can believe that God created the mechanisms that led to evolution.

Stephen Jay Gould (not a faithful Christian) proposed his notion of “nonoverlapping magisteria”.

The text of Humani Generis (the 1950 encyclical) focuses on the magisterium (or teaching authority) of the Church—a word derived not from any concept of majesty or awe but from the different notion of teaching, for magister is Latin for "teacher." We may, I think, adopt this word and concept to express the central point of this essay and the principled resolution of supposed "conflict" or "warfare" between science and religion. No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap (the principle that I would like to designate as NOMA, or "nonoverlapping magisteria").

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.

This view has been widely criticized. Richard Dawkins (not a faithful Christian) has said

More generally it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.

The same is true of many of the major doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. The Virgin Birth, the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Resurrection of Jesus, the survival of our own souls after death: these are all claims of a clearly scientific nature. Either Jesus had a corporeal father or he didn't. This is not a question of "values" or "morals"; it is a question of sober fact. We may not have the evidence to answer it, but it is a scientific question, nevertheless. You may be sure that, if any evidence supporting the claim were discovered, the Vatican would not be reticent in promoting it.

Perhaps one of the central questions for theists who who do not reject material evolution is the question of the immortal soul and when it was placed in our species.

"Long ago I realized that when people stand out there calling themselves Catholic, Christian (some even believe these can't co-exist), Jewish, whatever and still "pick and choose" what they wish to believe and or follow of the tenets of that particular group they are HYPOCRITES and THAT should be their religion!"

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's not the people who question the base of some of their church's principles who are wrong, but the churches themselves? Imho anyone who states nonsense like, for instance, that the pope is impeccable is the real hypocrite. The problem aren't those christians who stick to the basic beliefs (there is a god, Jesus is an incarnation of god, and a christian life should be based on the ten commandments), the problem are all who preach obscure ideas based on questionable interpretations of passages of the bible that are taken out of context.

You should blame those self-righteous reactionaries instead of attacking those who try to change the church from within. But it looks as though you are as stubborn in your rejection of everything christian as some so called christians are in quashing what they see as atheist ideas.

"why can't evolution be intelligent design? Why can't a faithful Christian believe that the Almighty created a system where life would evolve?"

Exactly. Why would God have to use a crutch like 'intelligent design', when he can create a framework that would lead to intelligent beings all by itself? And even if the world really is only 6000 years old and all the evidence to the contrary were faked by the allmighty, what's the point in stopping to study his creation?

T1: Okay, fine -- let's say evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of intelligent design.

Why should ID be considered science? How does it help explain the phenomena scientists are trying to understand? ID is a research dead-end. At some point, you get to "goddidit, the end" and where do you go from there? Scientific method (which has served us well thus far) holds that nothing is unknowable, even if it's unknown right now. And yes, previous theories and discoveries are always open to revision, even rejection -- when new discoveries or theories offer a better explanation. How is ID a better explanation? Simpler, yes, but not better.

ID is philosophy or (for the honest proponents) theology. The only time I or anyone else has a problem with it is when someone tries to force ID into the science classroom. ID is not science, it has no role in science, and it shouldn't be taught in science classes.

Do you have a problem with that?

I had a t-shirt made which has the following:
"Evolution doesn't care whether you believe in it or not"

OK I am too lazy to bother to see if the previous acceptance of evolution had the weight of Papal Infalibility.

Very little Church teaching explicitly does, and that on evolution clearly does not (and is not even really a "teaching".)

OTOH, while its possible these supposed signs are accurate, its worth noting that the kind of insiders who give the press these previews are often interested parties that are as likely to be promoting putting their own case forward in the media rather than previewing what is actually likely to occur.

On the third hand, Benedict has clearly been doing a lot to reach out to disaffected theological reactionaries, so its not at all implausible that something not too dissimilar to what is described might be on the agenda.

If Intelligent Design should not be brought into the science class room, then two problems are immediately apparent;
1. Certain theories are not going to be permitted. Is this how science operates? Rejection before testing?
2. The foundational understanding of the origin of species is the concept that God does not exist. Why does science class begin with the assumption that God does not exist? Isn’t it anti-scientific to assume anything is true which cannot be proven conclusively?

If there are dimensions we cannot see or measure yet we know they exist, and time travel effects we cannot prove nor witness yet we are to believe those exist, why is there a necessity to quash any mention of God at all?
If God has nothing to do with science then why the militant effort to wipe away even the slightest mention of Him?

Atheism is a religion. To claim no supernatural being exists without having the evidence to prove that claim is talking His absence by faith. I am just amazed at how so called “logical and reasonable” people who believe in the origin of species get so red faced, screaming mad at the mere mention of Jesus or God or the Bible. It is like some bad vampire movie.

Humor the ID scientist would ya? The Darwinists are squealing so much it is starting to seem like they have something to hide.

Don P, who sometimes posts as "GOP", and when he wants to attack liberal Christians posts as "Atheist", replied to xeynon:

You don't think your description of me as "intolerant, self-righteous, fanatical, utterly convinced of the rightness of his own arbitrary notions about the world, every phrase you could possibly use to describe religious zealots" is belligerant or ad hominem?

Actually, that is a very astute and accurate description of Don P's writing on these threads.

I would add that Don is himself agressively belligerent, and also willfully ignorant, maliciously dishonest, driven by his bloated and diseased ego to impress himself with his ability to deliberately waste other people's time with bullshit, and in the context of discussions such as this one, prone to sneeringly attacking the metaphysical views of others (which he shows no sign of actually comprehending) while engaging in dogmatic pontification about his anti-scientific faith-based belief system that reality consists exclusively of "blind mechanical forces".

Don P, posting as "GOP", wrote: "The nature of the world as revealed by modern science, and especially by evolutionary biology, is random and chaotic, indifferent to suffering, full of false-starts and dead-ends, with no sign of purpose or direction or goal."

Modern science has "revealed" no such thing. That's a statement of your personal religion, and nothing more. It certainly has nothing whatever to do with science.

Charlie posting as "Thomas1" wrote: As long as you admit the Theory of Evolution is fallible then -- SecularAnimist refuses to do so.

I don't know what you are talking about.

If advocates of "intelligent design" want to argue "that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection", they first need to answer this question:

What is "intelligence"?

Also, "natural selection" is not an "undirected process". The overall process of evolutionary natural selection is directed by the propagation of inherited traits that provide survival and reproductive advantages, which is a definitive part of the process.

I would add that Don is himself agressively belligerent, and also willfully ignorant, maliciously dishonest, driven by his bloated and diseased ego to impress himself with his ability to deliberately waste other people's time with bullshit, and in the context of discussions such as this one, prone to sneeringly attacking the metaphysical views of others (which he shows no sign of actually comprehending) while engaging in dogmatic pontification about his anti-scientific faith-based belief system that reality consists exclusively of "blind mechanical forces".

Brilliant summation.

"1. Certain theories are not going to be permitted. Is this how science operates? Rejection before testing?
2. The foundational understanding of the origin of species is the concept that God does not exist. Why does science class begin with the assumption that God does not exist? Isn’t it anti-scientific to assume anything is true which cannot be proven conclusively?"

Orwell, sry, but you don't dig it.
Both of your statements are misleading. Firstly, there aren't no theories wo are not permitted per se. But intelligent design isn't even a theory roght now, it's just a cluster of criticisms on evolution. It only raises doubt in areas where there hasn't been a scientific explanation so far nut it doesn't build up a rational theory as an opposing modell. As long at it doesn't explain how the intelligent creator manipulates the mutation of species, it can't be tested. Since the possibility of tests is essential for the classification as a theory, ID is simply an idea right now. Science lessons can't cover ideas, the time is simply too short for that. Of course, a teacher should be able to explain this when a kid asks about ID.

Secondly, who says that "the concept that God does not exist" is the "foundation" of evolution? Be honest, it's just a strawman you built. The question if god exists or not is totally irrelevant for science. Btw, you did screw up the scientific approach towards assumptions: It is unscientific to assume something exists if it can't be proven.

Who designed the designer?

Also, "natural selection" is not an "undirected process".

It might be reasonable to say it is both a directed process and an undirected process.

But as for ID, its explanatory power is nil. It says in essence, because there are things we do not understand there must be a Daddy-in-the-Sky who does.

OBF:

I am really curious about the motivation of someone with a completely closed mind. How is it that the perfectly reasonable explanations offered by Thomas1 were simply dismissed by you. You may choose or not choose to practice religion or not, but in light of the obvious evidence, can't you at least let go of your silly notion that the Bible says pi=3.0. It just does not.

Try taking a more scientific view of this passage. This passage of scripture does not discuss something terribly theological. It does discuss the practical methods of an ancient society in creating temple furniture. It is much more instrucitve to read their literal measurements, and then try to deduce their method of construction, then to apply your self imposed ideas about the way the measurements had to be done and then insist the Bible says pi=3.0.

Your insistence on holding onto this belief make you appear as an ignorant man of not much deep throught who parrots the things he heard from others, and then can not let go of his arguments even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

Sometimes the best arguments for God are the stupid arguments atheists make against Him.

*Such an apparent paradox would be indicative of the limitations of our language and little else.

The thing about this pope is that it really does depend what the meaning of is is. In theory, the new policy on gay priests is supposed to exclude them from the seminary, but my understanding is that in practice it is more image-mongering than anything else. This is not to say that the Vatican's bully pulpit doesn't matter at all (although certainly it matters less than it once did), but what would this mean in practice? Catholic schools today compete to a great extent for college prep students from upper middle class and wealthy backgrounds, many of whose parents one guesses would not want their kids at a competitive disadvantage. And I believe public school teachers are already allowed a statement of conscience about their own view of creationism and evolution before they're required to teach evolution.

Sometimes the best arguments for God are the stupid arguments atheists make against Him.

You mean "Her."

Sometimes the best arguments for the Goddess are the stupid arguments Christians make against Her.

ID is not a theory. By definition a theory leads to hypothyses which are subject to rejection. ID just is. It's the old God of the Gaps ruse. Where ever scientific knowledge is controvertible or incomplete, that's where God is. I suppose that God could be hiding in the 11th dimension of string theory, but what does that have to do, that can be proven, with Moses or Jesus or us? Our analytical skills are our greatest assets. The progress of humanity, such as it is, proves that. No God worth the name would ask us not to use them. With ID there is nothing to analyze.

Our minds have a teleological(searching for a ultimate purpose or cause) bias, probably selected back in prehistory, hunting on the savannah. Even Richard Dawkins, a pioneer of neo-darwinism, tends to expain evolution as having the ultimate 'purpose' of gene(not us) survival. But every few pages he always reminds us that he is just using a linguistic device. The genes do not direct evolution, circumstances and the laws of physics, do.

I scanned through the comments, SecularAnimist seems to isolate the essential point on ID when he asks what is intelligence.

But, I have been a fan of the ID theory precisely because it forces its believers to answer the question, "What is natural intelligence in the universe?"

The universe itself is very intelligent, as we know whenever we discover the essentials behind a scietific mystery. We say, "Oh, now that makes sense"

ID is a path that gets the religionists out of their childhood fantasies without looking embarassed.

"Sometimes the best arguments for the Goddess are the stupid arguments Christians make against Her."

Hehehe! Somehow, this make me think of Alanis Morisette...

Hee hee. I remember laughing out loud back in the seventies when Pope Joe (then the wee Cardinal Rat Zinger) held forth about how American couples wouldn't have practiced contraception if their parish priests hadn't encouraged them to do so. He totally blamed the priests for not threatening sufficient hellfire. Apparently he hadn't noticed that American women had grabbed the pill, decided it was a private decision and left their priests and assorted other church officials to eat their dust. Said officials had the choice of agreeing with them or condemning them, but there was no chance they were going to influence those women.

Since then Catholics have become increasingly comfortable with roping off various areas in their lives from church interference. Lots of American Catholics are OK with women priests, abortion, divorce, extramarital sex, gay sex and the war in Iraq.

If Pope Joe makes ID a Church doctrine, I'm sure they'll happily ignore it along with a heap of other Church doctrine. Why do they stay Catholics? I dunno. For the warm fuzzies of childhood memory and the reassurance that death isn't final, I guess.

This view has been widely criticized.

Yes. In fact, a large majority of evolutionary biologists seem to reject Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" view of science and religion.

If Pope Joe makes ID a Church doctrine, I'm sure they'll happily ignore it along with a heap of other Church doctrine. Why do they stay Catholics? I dunno. For the warm fuzzies of childhood memory and the reassurance that death isn't final, I guess.

Yes, it seems to have almost everything to do with being raised as a Catholic and almost nothing to do with being persuaded that Catholic teachings are true on their merits. The number of adult converts to Catholicism is tiny, and most of those cases seem to be a matter of family politics rather than genuine religious conversion.

"I remember laughing out loud back in the seventies when Pope Joe (then the wee Cardinal Rat Zinger) held forth about how American couples wouldn't have practiced contraception if their parish priests hadn't encouraged them to do so."

And on what is Ratzingers idea, that god is against contraception, based? In a single bible story about Onan. And if you read it you realize that Onan is punished for rejecting God's will, bit for coitus interruprus or masturbation. But the churches built an extensive concept of the holiness of pregnancy on that foundation. Ridiculous.

Michael7843853 G-O in 08! >"...Our analytical skills are our greatest assets. The progress of humanity, such as it is, proves that. No God worth the name would ask us not to use them..."

You seem to have good company in that mind set...

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

"Why do they stay Catholics? I dunno. For the warm fuzzies of childhood memory and the reassurance that death isn't final, I guess."

This isn't a catholic problem, the overinterpretation of the bible and the whole nonsense that's based on it is a problem of all christian churches, ok? And why I stay in the catholic church is my business and not yours. Also, I start wondering why you make such a fuzz about the pope, if you're not catholic this shouldn't matter to you at all. What's the problem? You're evangelizing here, looking for poeple to join the ranks of the atheists? :P

Animist,

The overall process of evolutionary natural selection is directed by the propagation of inherited traits that provide survival and reproductive advantages, which is a definitive part of the process.

A process cannot be "directed" by an outcome ("the propagation of inherited traits") that is a consequence of that process.

If anything "directs" the process of natural selection, it is merely the more basic laws of science. There's no sign of any intelligent guidance or purpose or goal.

If Intelligent Design should not be brought into the science class room, then two problems are immediately apparent; 1. Certain theories are not going to be permitted. Is this how science operates? Rejection before testing?

Intelligent design is not a "theory" (or even a "hypothesis") as the word is used in science (it is a "theory" as that term is often used in, say, literary or artistic criticism, which is almost precisely opposite of the way it is used in science. Observations are coerced into it, but it makes no testable predictions.)

The exclusion of ID is thus not the exclusion of any scientific theory from the science classroom, merely the exclusion of things that are not science from the science classroom.

2. The foundational understanding of the origin of species is the concept that God does not exist.

False. "God" can exist outside of the framework of beliefs called "Intelligent Design", so even if ID were expelled as a "wrong theory" rather than "non-theory", it would not represent either the assumption nor the conclusion that God does not exist.

(OTOH, God, at least as generally defined, is a nontestable hypothesis that is largely irrelevant to scientific explanation.)

Why does science class begin with the assumption that God does not exist?

As explained above, it is neither a beginning assumption nor a conclusion required for the exclusion of ID from the science classroom.

Isn’t it anti-scientific to assume anything is true which cannot be proven conclusively?

No, it is not. Very little, if anything, in science can be "proven conclusively". A theory is accepted if it explains existing observations more parsimoniously than competing theories, has tests which would falsify it, and has failed to be falsified. This is not the same thing as "proven conclusively"; if it were "proven conclusively" it would, by definition, never be falsified, but theories which are accepted at one time are frequently rejected later as new means of falsification become available.

If there are dimensions we cannot see or measure yet we know they exist, and time travel effects we cannot prove nor witness yet we are to believe those exist, why is there a necessity to quash any mention of God at all?

Because the former (insofar as we should accept them as scientific conclusions) explain actual observations and have falsifiable implications that have withstood testing. (Though, AFAIK, that's perhaps true of additional dimensions, but not of time travel effects.(

If God has nothing to do with science then why the militant effort to wipe away even the slightest mention of Him?

The removal of non-science, which God decidedly is, from the science classroom, is not a "militant effort to wipe away even the slightest mention of Him".

Its an effort to keep the science curriculum focussed on science, and leave God to the churches.

Humor the ID scientist would ya?

There is no such thing as an ID scientist. Anyone who thinks ID is science either doesn't understand ID or, more likely, doesn't understand science.

"Yes, it seems to have almost everything to do with being raised as a Catholic and almost nothing to do with being persuaded that Catholic teachings are true on their merits."

Hey, there's not so much a differwence between being catholic or belonging to another christian church (except some strange christian sects, of course). Many americans go to the church that's nearest to heir home. Why don't you attack them for being not intelluctually coherent? It would never come to my mind to blame you for the church you did NOT join, nitpickers.

Gray,

And why I stay in the catholic church is my business and not yours.

You certainly have the right to stay in the Catholic Church, but you don't have the right not to be criticized for doing so, or not to have your reasons for staying in the church examined, challenged and critiqued.

Also, I start wondering why you make such a fuzz about the pope, if you're not catholic this shouldn't matter to you at all.

Unfortunately, the Pope and the Catholic Church are still very influential, especially in the developing world, where poverty and ignorance make people especially vulnerable to religious nonsense, so what the Pope and the Church say and do matters very much.

Yes, it seems to have almost everything to do with being raised as a Catholic and almost nothing to do with being persuaded that Catholic teachings are true on their merits. The number of adult converts to Catholicism is tiny, and most of those cases seem to be a matter of family politics rather than genuine religious conversion.

You know, sometimes what "seems" tells more about the "see-er" than the "seen".

Gray >"...And on what is Ratzingers idea, that god is against contraception, based?..."

As you suggest, willful misinterpretation of deeply suspect literature

I think it is important to "look behind the curtain" on this belief structure & ask "Why is this such an important theological construct ?"

Demography dynamics & the ability to borrow against future collection revenue.

Simple version = if church members use birth control then birth rate is lower than it would be otherwise & therefore the church "fathers" (powers that be) would be restrained more than they would be otherwise in borrowing to fund their activities in the "here and now"

Simple economics of day to day management of the organization (church)

Of course not the complete answer but certainly a portion of it to take into consideration

"There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." - Richard Avedon

Hey, there's not so much a differwence between being catholic or belonging to another christian church (except some strange christian sects, of course).

It's not exclusive to Catholics, but I think the whole "I'm a Catholic because my family heritage is Catholic and that's how I was raised" justification is more prevalent amoung Catholics than amoung Christians in general.

Many americans go to the church that's nearest to heir home. Why don't you attack them for being not intelluctually coherent?

I do.

cmdicely,

You know, sometimes what "seems" tells more about the "see-er" than the "seen".

And sometimes not. The "seems" in this case is strongly supported by evidence, such as the small number of adult converts to Catholicism that I mentioned. If the Catholic Church doesn't get you as a child, it's probably never going to get you. That's what happened in your case, too, isn't it?

And on what is Ratzingers idea, that god is against contraception, based? In a single bible story about Onan.

No, the belief is not based on that single Bible story, as even a casual perusal of any of the doctrinal writings on the issue would reveal. Everything that follows from that false assumption is likewise misguided.

"casual perusal of any of the doctrinal writings on the issue would reveal"

Oops, really? Sry for revealing that I don't read catholic doctrines, for instance in bed vefore turning the light out. But I already stated above that I think every interpretation of the bible is a futile attempt. It's not the word of the god, it's the reporting about the word of god by humans who were prone to errors and not free of prejudices and selfish interests. To seek any details on God's intend in it is as if you try to reconstruct the constitution based on a day's worth of french newspapers. :D

The "seems" in this case is strongly supported by evidence,

You have presented no such evidence.

such as the small number of adult converts to Catholicism that I mentioned.

Your unsupported subjective characterization is not even remotely evidence.

"Demography dynamics"
Well, I suspect that there is some truth to it, dC. Of course the church is interested in growing by catholic parents having many children. And I'm not at all sure that this doesn't affect the official doctrine...

Don P, posting as "Atheist" as he does when he wants to attack liberal Christians, wrote:

A process cannot be "directed" by an outcome ("the propagation of inherited traits") that is a consequence of that process.

That's just another one of your inane dogmatic pronouncements, and indeed one of your most inane assertions ever.

Of course a process can be directed by an outcome of that process. This is called feedback.

If anything "directs" the process of natural selection, it is merely the more basic laws of science.

The entire concept of "natural selection" is of a directed process. That's what the word "selection" refers to: inherited changes which tend to improve the ability of organisms to survive and reproduce tend to survive and be reproduced, while those that tend to undermine the ability of organisms to survive and reproduce tend to be eliminated. The overall process is directed by this feedback towards producing lifeforms that are adapated to survive in changing environmental circumstances.

While the individual changes or "mutations" that occur may or may not be "random", the overall process -- including the feedback of selection of mutations that will survive and be propagated and those that won't -- is certainly not random.

There's no sign of any intelligent guidance or purpose or goal.

What do you mean be "intelligent"? How do you recognize "intelligence" when you encounter it? How do you determine whether an entity or process, or aggragation of entities or processes, exhibits "intelligence"?

Those who dogmatically deny any role for "intelligence" in the evolution of life are just as obligated to define what they mean by "intelligence" as are proponents of "intelligent" design, but in most such discussions, neither camp ever does, which means the entire discussion is meaningless noise.

And the "goal" of biological evolution is self-evident: it is life's way of diversifying and adapting to ever-changing circumstances in order to survive and flourish.

Since it 'seems' that neither cmdicely nor Atheist want to favor us with any statistics to back up their assertions:

according to CNN, "The number of adult converts to Roman Catholicism has reached its highest level in more than 20 years. Nationally, more than 160,000 converts will be admitted to the Church this year."

I can't say that I find this news heartening, as I personally find the retreat behind the maternal skirts of religion to be a manifestation of increasing instability in the world and a diminishing reliance on rational, secular solutions.

Either way, the argument for or against religious faith cannot be reduced to a mere popularity contest.

How do you recognize "intelligence" when you encounter it?

He doesn't, that's what makes him so damned dense! [rimshot]

Thanks folks, I'll be here all week and two shows on Saturday. Remember to tip your servers, those ladies work hard.

cmdicely wrote: "There is no such thing as an ID scientist. "

A scientist who wanted to investigate the possibility of "intelligent design" would need to start with some basic questions such as those I mentioned in my previous post:

What is meant by "intelligent"?

How does one recognize "intelligence" when one encounters it?

How does one determine whether an entity or process, or aggragation of entities or processes, exhibits "intelligence"?

These are not trivial questions. Consider the controversies over "intelligence tests" for human beings, e.g. IQ testing -- even in regard to the paradigmatic example of "intelligence", namely human intelligence, there is disagreement over what "intelligence" is, how to detect it, and how to measure it. Beyond that, consider the controversies over evaluating the intelligence of non-human animals, even those that are closely related to human beings, such as chimpanzees, let alone less closely related animals that exhibit behaviors suggestive of "intelligence", including social insects.

And beyond that -- even if given a general definition of "intelligence" that is clearly applicable beyond the very limited sphere of human intelligence, along with a reliable method of detecting the presence of "intelligence" in a variety of entities and processes -- such a scientist would need to consider ID proponents' logically separate claim of "design".

Even if it could somehow be shown that biological evolution exhibits "intelligence", that does not establish the existence or role of a "designer" that is separate from the process itself. After all, the intelligence might be an inherent aspect of the process of evolution itself (as I would argue is the case).

So a scientist attempting to investigate ID would not only need to investigate the role of
"intelligence" in evolution, but would separately need to establish some way of determining whether there is any evidence of the existence of a separate "designer" and of that "designer's" role in the process.

I think that conceptually, ID falls down on two points. First, it fails to define what it means by "intelligence". Secondly, it conflates the two logically separate notions of (1) some role for "intelligence" in biological evolution and (2) the existence of a "designer" separate from the process of evolution itself.

It is as though ID proponents assume that if some sort of "intelligence" plays some sort of role in evolution, then that "intelligence" must necessarily be outside the evolutionary process, rather than an inherent part of it.

That assumption is clearly faulty, and seems curious, unless one considers that ID is really just a front for Judeo-Christian Biblical-literalist creationism, where the existence of an external "designer" is the dogmatic starting point, rather than the conclusion of a thought process.

zeke >"...highest level in more than 20 years. Nationally, more than 160,000 converts will be admitted to the Church this year."..."

CNN as an authority ?

Well, OK if you insist

"...more than..."

OK, 160,002 which is STILL not that much given the population of this nation state

they are, at best, "treading water"

Atheist >"...as evidenced by the huge number of lapsed, disobedient and disbelieving Catholics..."

I prefer "recovering Catholics" which is, I think, more "correct"

"I believe there is a force to the universe, I just don't commit to any particular man behind the curtain" - Oliver Willis

"lapsed, disobedient and disbelieving Catholics..."

I'm not lapsed and disbelieving, I'm still a christian. And disobedient? Where is God cited in the bible, stating christians have to obey anyone remotely resembling the pope? That's just propaganda the popes spread several hundred years AD.
'

Atheist, daCascadian, et al.,

I don't pretend to vouch for CNN's accuracy - just thought I'd toss out some actual numbers for you all to parse.

Simply ask yourself: What is 'the catholic church'? Is it only the officials or the broad mass of followers? And if the majority of catholics doesn't follow the person who should be their spiritual leader, is this the fault of the believers or that of the pope and an elitist clique in Rome who totally lost touch with the base?

So, stop blaming 'the catholic church' for every reactionary nonsense coming from the Rome. A self-absorbed bureaucracy, encrusted with the dust of centuries, is responsible for electing Ratzinger. This pope is the last product of a lost generation of fearful, backward oriented fossils. I am confident that the next pope will bring some fresh wind into the organisation. Until then, most will continue to ignore Ratzinger...

Typically, a non-Catholic "converts" when he marries into a very Catholic family to keep his in-laws happy. It's about family politics, not genuine religious belief.

Cite please.

160,000 is about 1 out of every 2,000 people in the U.S. In other words, the chance of an American adult converting to Catholicism is minuscule.

Given that 1 in 4 Americans are Catholic and that Catholicism in the U.s. grew by 11% between 1990 and 2001, I'd say it's doing OK. After all, many financial advisors expect an average return of only 10% on the stock market over time and still recommend their clients invest their money into it.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#families

Catholic teaching and practise is full of stuff that strikes most people, even most other Christians, as deeply weird and archaic.

Cite.

Unless you're conditioned to accept this kind of nonsense as a child, you're very unlikely to accept it as an adult.

Cite.

"pseudo Stefanus"? What's that? Stefan in disguise?

"Because biological evolution is slow, inefficient and causes a huge amount of suffering, amoung other reasons."
Well, it brought us here, just needed a few billion years for that...

"If God is all-powerful and all-good, why didn't he use a better method?"
'Why is nature so brutal?' 'Why can't the predators not come along with the others?' 'What is sickness good for, such needless suffering?'
Questions, questions, lots of questions. And only one possible answer: It's not for us to question the ways of the lord.

I wrote: Of course a process can be directed by an outcome of that process. This is called feedback.

Don P replied: No, feedback is itself an outcome of the process

That's what I said. Feedback is an outcome of the process. By definition, that outcome "feeds back" into the process, thereby influencing or "directing" the further development of the process.

Don P: ... not an influence external to the process that "directs" it. The sense in which Intelligent Design involves "direction" is an external agent (God) intervening to create or control a process.

As you so often do, you are making up things and pretending that I wrote them so you can engage in your trademark time-wasting, pointless argument for the sake of argument. I said nothing about any "external influence". I am talking about a process that directs itself through feedback.

I wrote: The entire concept of "natural selection" is of a directed process.

Don P replied: No it isn't.

Yes, it is. The "selection" aspect provides direction.

Don P wrote: As I said, the only sense in which natural selection is "directed," as far as we can tell, is in the sense of being an inevitable consequence of the more basic laws of nature.

Natural selection is by definition "directed" to produce life forms that are adapted to survive in changing environmental circumstances.

I asked: What do you mean by "intelligent"?

Don P replied: Possessing the characteristic of intelligence.

That's inane drivel that I would have thought was beneath even you. "Intelligent means to possess the characteristic of intelligence." You'd flunk third grade with answers like that.

If God has nothing to do with science then why the militant effort to wipe away even the slightest mention of Him?

Right On! I move that we include discussion of beavers into the curriculum of Latin class.

Don P, posting as "Atheist", wrote: A disorganised pile of rocks is not evidence of intelligence. A group of rocks arranged to spell out "Hello, God here!" would be evidence of intelligence

That is exactly the central argument offered by proponents of Intelligent Design that life must have been "designed" by some "intelligence": that such a complex and highly ordered system could not have occurred "by chance" and that its complexity and orderliness are "evidence of intelligence."

The American Religious Identification Survey found that the proportion of the U.S. population that even merely identifies as Catholic declined from about 26% in 1990 to about 24.5% in 2001.

Actually, no. Properly, ARIS found that decrease in share compared to NSRI for the US adult population, not the US population as a whole.

The same survey found that the adult Catholic population of the US increased by 11%, faster than the total adult Christian population (5% over the same period.)

160,000 is about 1 out of every 2,000 people in the U.S. In other words, the chance of an American adult converting to Catholicism is minuscule.

If any comparison between the number of adult conversions and the population was valid, it would be a comparison to the non-Catholic adult population which is substantially smaller than the entire population regardless of age or religion.

Further, even a 1 in 2,000 annual probability—which is what you are talking about (rather than lifetime)—of an adult converting to Catholicism wouldn't be particularly miniscule, the actual, substantially larger probability, is even less miniscule.

You are much better at quoting statistics than applying them.

You have presented no such evidence.

Yes I have. The small number of adult converts to Catholicism.

Your own subjective characterization is not exactly what I'd call evidence, and your (later than this claim to have posted evidence) attempts to take someone else's sourced numbers and support your subjective characterization with them by adding more subjective characterizations and an inappropriate comparison to the wrong population universe don't help, either.

Again, you have presented none of the kind of evidence that would justify your claim that “The ‘seems’ in this case is strongly supported by evidence”.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory contains many elements which are also unproven, but it's still infallible.

FSM: The Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory contains many elements which are also unproven, but it's still infallible.

Modern physics contains elements which are unproven, e.g. subatomic entities which have never been observed, which cannot be observed with the technology available today, and which may correspond to some empirically obserable "physical reality" or may be no more than mathematical abstractions.

Yet the theories that include these "unproven elements" can nonetheless be used to make predictions that can be tested by empirical observation.

cmdicely to Don P: You are much better at quoting statistics than applying them.

Don P is good at bullshitting, and not good at much else.

You of all people should know that by now.

Religion, then, is nothing more or less than a coping mechanism

An opiate, if you will, for the masses.

Atheist/Don P wrote: A disorganised pile of rocks is not evidence of intelligence. A group of rocks arranged to spell out "Hello, God here!" would be evidence of intelligence.

Atheist/Don P then wrote: Do you (SecularAnimist) also think the belief that a pile of rocks arranged to spell out the message "Hello, God here!" is evidence of intelligence is wrong?

What do you mean "also?" You said it was evidence of intelligence. And if it is, why isn't a group of molecules arranged to form a palm tree also evidence of intelligence?

a true conversion rate (after weeding out the family politics cases) much lower even than that pitiful number.

Sixty times as many Catholics in the U.S. as self-identified atheists.

I'd say the Catholics are going to have the upper hand for a long while.

A whole fucking lot more people who self-identify as Catholic than self-identify as atheist -- up to sixty times as many depending on their level of Catholicity! And a whooole fucking lot more who identify as Christian.

Looking pretty bleak for the atheists.

Even a dyed-in-the-wool unbeliever like myself can muster a heartfelt "God Save The Kinks."

And Waterloo Sunset is one of my favorites...

There is a vast right wing conspiracy. It is funded by filthy rich Neocon elites. They fund organizations like the "religion and democracy institute". That one particular institute's charge is to take over mainline protestant leadership positions with far right wingnut conservatives. They have another group that is based out of Seattle that goes after evangelical groups (quite succesfully I might add). No doubt there's a group going after Jewish (mostly orthodox) and Catholics.

This has been going on for a long time. Some say it comes from the CIA, who knows, many point to the one month reign of John Paul I, and the election of the conservative Polish Pope, John Paul II, the first non-Italian pope in centuries. John Paul pumped tons right wing conservatives into the roles of Bishops and Archbishops and cardinals. The coup de grace is the selection of Benedict XXIII an ex-Hitler Youth right wing conservative ideologue.

With their clergy either right wing falangist fascist, Pedophiles or Sexual abusers, a loathing for women, and love of power and hierarchy, I have one foot out of the Catholic church already. They are cozying up to the wingnuts. I mean I've really had enough.

The rich right wingnut neocons are calling the tune, the church has tons of wing nut cleargy and laypeople that love power, love hierarchy, love authoritarian structure, their great accomplishment was the Spanish Civil war, they have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for their moment, it would be impossible to sit this dance out.

They are wading into a great abyss. They can do so with out me. Thank you. No doubt, I'll see them all in hell.

六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩 - 六合彩, 六合彩特码 - 六合彩特码, 六合彩一字解特码 - 六合彩一字解特码, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩 - 香港六合彩, 香港六合彩公司 - 香港六合彩公司

婚纱摄影 婚纱影楼 非油品 中石化 网页制作 网页设计 网站建设\ 网站制作 网站设计 设计 北京网站设计 网站推广 北京网站推广 北京网站制作 北京网页设计 北京网站建设 网站优化 yahoo竞价 google推广 google排名 google优化 双线空间 ＰＨＰ空间 ＡＳＰ空间 网站空间 虚拟主机 域名注册 法语 钟表 塔钟 钟表 家用中央空调 格力中央空调 助听器 助听器 助听器 发电机 发电机组 柴油发电机 发电设备 发电机出租 康明斯 发电机 发电机组 柴油发电机 发电设备 发电机出租 康明斯 法国留学 法语培训 进口轴承 skf轴承 nsk轴承 轴承 进口轴承 skf轴承 fag轴承 轴承\ 轴承 进口轴承 进口轴承 直线轴承 skf轴承 nsk轴承 北京装饰|装修 家装|家庭装饰 办公室装饰|装饰公司 装修公司|工装装潢 装饰装修|北京装饰公司 家居装修|室内装修 房屋装修|家庭装修公司 装修设计|室内装潢 家居装潢|家庭装潢 装潢设计|室内装潢设计 充气床 充气用品 充气游泳池 野营用品 户外用品 充气船 气垫床 钓鱼船 帐篷 户外帐篷 瑞士军刀 intex充气床| 中央吸尘 家用中央吸尘 商业中央吸尘 吸尘器 中央吸尘系统 工业吸尘 风灶清洗 通风清洗 中央空调管道清洗 机器人管道清洗 管道清洗机器人 机器人清洗 检测机器人 吸尘机 别墅吸尘 宾馆吸尘| 网站建设 网站制作 网页设计 网页制作 网络推广 网站优化 网站推广 GOOGLE优化 进口轴承|nsk轴承|skf轴承 充气床|充气用品|充气游泳池|野营用品|户外用品|充气船|气垫床|钓鱼船|帐篷|户外帐篷|瑞士军刀| 北京酒店 上海酒店 广州酒店 长沙酒店 张家界酒店 南京酒店 深圳酒店 天津酒店 重庆酒店 昆明酒店 桂林酒店 井冈山酒店 酒店 西藏酒店 宾馆 宾馆预定 杭州酒店 北京酒店 上海酒店 广州酒店 长沙酒店 张家界酒店 南京酒店 深圳酒店 天津酒店 重庆酒店 昆明酒店 桂林酒店 井冈山酒店 网站制作 网站策划 网页美工设计 网站设计方案 网站建设公司 网站制作公司 网站推广公司 网页设计公司 网站设计公司

Protestant Christianity is declining faster in America than Catholic Christianity, but both are in serious decline.

The kind of "decline" that results in having more members as time progresses.

csHi. This is my links. http://feti.uprio.com/black-stocking-and-suspenders.html
1950 fully fashioned stockings
http://feti.uprio.com/nylon-foot-fetish.html
http://feti.uprio.com/ladies-legs-in-nylons.html
http://feti.uprio.com/lesbians-in-nylon.html
http://feti.uprio.com/lesbians-in-stockings.html
http://feti.uprio.com/pantyhose-high-heels.html
http://feti.uprio.com/pantyhose-candid.html
heels stockings legs
http://feti.uprio.com/sexy-nylon.html

csLook this rough oral sex|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/rough-oral-sex.html
public cumshots|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/public-cumshots.html
big cum shots|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/big-cum-shots.html
facial mole removal|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/facial-mole-removal.html
monster facial|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/monster-facial.html
cumshot gay|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/cumshot-gay.html
shemale oral sex|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/shemale-oral-sex.html
monster facials|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/monster-facials.html
nasty facials|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/nasty-facials.html
massive facial|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/massive-facial.html

csThere are aloe vera facial gels|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/aloe-vera-facial-gels.html
tranny cumshots|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/tranny-cumshots.html
facial treatments|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/facial-treatments.html
free cum shot video clips|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/free-cum-shot-video-clips.html

csThere are aloe vera facial gels|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/aloe-vera-facial-gels.html
tranny cumshots|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/tranny-cumshots.html
facial treatments|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/facial-treatments.html
free cum shot video clips|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/free-cum-shot-video-clips.html
granny facial|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/granny-facial.html
ebony cum shots|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/ebony-cum-shots.html
peter north facial cumshots|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/peter-north-facial-cumshots.html
facial mole removal|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/facial-mole-removal.html
free facial galleries|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/free-facial-galleries.html
cumshot gay|http://frfroodick.maturetrack.com/cumshot-gay.html

csLook this 1ncest message board
http://tuupi.poes.net/1nceststoryarchive.html
4dul7 1ncest stories
free stories 1ncest
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestmomandson.html
1ncest teen
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestlove.html
1ncest little girls
http://tuupi.poes.net/
mom son free gallery

csNo words 1ncest love
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestmovieclips.html
http://tuupi.poes.net/free1ncestchat.html
1ncest story archive
http://tuupi.poes.net/stories1ncest101ita.html
9ay male 1ncest
1ncest little girls
mom son free gallery
http://tuupi.poes.net/familys3xstory.html
1ncest teen

csIt is there - gay incest sex stories
forced incest stories
free incest fantasy stories
incest picture gallery
http://fuckson.bunup.com/forced-incest-stories.html
twins incest stories
incest free gallery, free incest
daughter and father incest
http://fuckson.bunup.com/best-incest-stories.html
http://fuckson.bunup.com/brother-and-sister-hentai.html

csThere are http://fucks.upjm.com/father-daughter-incest-porn.html
indian erotic incest stories
http://fucks.upjm.com/sister-brother-fucking.html
http://fucks.upjm.com/incest-sex-pictures.html
sister fucked by brother
incest porn videos
gay incest brothers
free incest movie clips
http://fucks.upjm.com/family-incests.html
gay dad fucking son incest

csIf you have a free time test this urls: 1ncest message board
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestmomandson.html
http://tuupi.poes.net/free1ncestchat.html
family 1ncest world
http://tuupi.poes.net/1ncestmovieclips.html
1ncest photo galleries
mom son free gallery
father/daughter 1ncest
http://tuupi.poes.net/1nceststoryarchive.html
1ncest story archive