Vatican Trying to Reconcile Science and Religion

Religion • Views: 5,327

Here’s a look at the Vatican’s walking-on-eggshells attitude toward Darwin’s theory of evolution, and their apparent dismissal of the “intelligent design” form of creationism: Reconciling Science, Religion.

“The ongoing and vigorous engagement of the Catholic Church with evolutionary theory reflects, in my opinion, a fluid and dynamic pathway that combines a profound sense of continuity with its historical past and a living and open, experiential response to … the discoveries of science,” said Robert J. Russell, founder of the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences in Berkeley, Calif.

Russell, a physicist and minister in the United Church of Christ, will be one of the speakers next month at a Vatican-sponsored conference marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species.”

In recent years, however, with the growing prominence of “creationism” and “intelligent design” as alternative explanations for the existence of humanity and the universe, Catholics have increasingly voiced doubts about Darwin’s acceptability. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a friend and former student of Pope Benedict’s, provoked controversy with a 2005 article arguing that “neo-Darwinian dogma” is not “compatible with Christian faith” and insisting that the “human intellect can readily discern purpose and design in the natural world.”

That the cardinal published his article with the encouragement and assistance of proponents of intelligent design gave the impression that a high church official was endorsing ideas that most scholars reject as unscientific. Schoenborn has since attempted to clarify his position, insisting that he rejects not the theory of evolution, but arguments that use Darwin’s ideas to disprove the existence of a creator-God.

The Rev. Marc Leclerc made the same distinction recently in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s newspaper. “Evolution and creation do not present the least opposition between them,” he wrote, “on the contrary, they reveal themselves as entirely complementary.”

Leclerc, lead organizer of the upcoming Darwin conference, said last year that no proponents of creationism or intelligent design had been invited to the event.

Yet the Vatican’s embrace of Darwin remains a qualified one. The conference is “not, even minimally, a ‘celebration’ in honor of the English scientist,” Leclerc said. “It is simply a matter of taking stock of the event that has forever marked the history of science and has influenced how we understand our own humanity.”

Jump to bottom

90 comments
1 Sharmuta  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:40:46am
“Evolution and creation do not present the least opposition between them,” he wrote, “on the contrary, they reveal themselves as entirely complementary.”

That's about how I feel on the matter, and just as much so when I look at astronomy, cosmology, and the birth of star, planets and galaxies. I think science brings me closer to God.

2 jcm  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:42:16am

I don't reconcile the two.
I keep them in separate spheres.

3 kynna  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:43:10am

Good luck with this. They're going to tick someone off no matter what they say or do.

But it seems to me they're taking steps to do the right thing on this issue.

4 Sharmuta  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:44:40am

re: #3 kynna

The Church pissing someone off? That'll be a first. /

5 screaming_eagle  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:44:40am

WoW Glad they cleared that up. That way when I goto church I know they preaching proven science.

/
//

6 jaunte  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:45:06am
The conference is "not, even minimally, a 'celebration' in honor of the English scientist," Leclerc said. "It is simply a matter of taking stock of the event that has forever marked the history of science and has influenced how we understand our own humanity."

Don't celebrate. It's an event that 'forever marked the history of science', and our understanding of our own humanity. But don't celebrate.

It's hard to say that all out of one side of the mouth.

7 itellu3times  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:45:22am

Sounds pretty clear.

Nice if the Vatican embraces science, tho frankly who cares.

Maybe they should work a bit harder on the religious aspects of religion, and worry about the doctrines of the church, which is basically a ghost of itself in the US these days.

8 Sharmuta  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:46:28am

re: #2 jcm

It's hard for me to not think of God when I see things like this.

9 tradewind  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:46:30am

It sooo misses the point. trying to ' reconcile ' science and religion. There is no need.... I can accept that evolution occurred from seeing evidence, just as I believe in God as the Creator by faith..... which is belief in that which cannot be seen or proven by science.

10 Sharmuta  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:47:29am

I got my cookbook!

11 Racer X  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:48:13am

This just came on to my iTunes - God Within.

Must be a sign.

12 Timbre  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:51:27am

Don't hold your breath concerning the Vatican evolving--even a doctrine as patently ridiculous as "Limbo of Infants" is still theologically pocketed, though it is not taught in the official Catechism.

13 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:52:16am

re: #10 Sharmuta

I got my cookbook!

Then can we assume your enthusiasm will lead you to do supper?
What time should I be there?
/BTW, I do dishes.

14 debutaunt  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:53:41am

Tom Leherer with some thread music:

15 jcm  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:54:29am

re: #8 Sharmuta

It's hard for me to not think of God when I see things like this.

Very true, I make that point at the link. That such knowledge does help to come to God.

My point was toward a fundamental error the creationists make. Trying to make faith into science.

16 freedombilly  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:54:32am

Nothing goes with hockey and beer like an ID thread!

17 Colonel Panik  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:55:25am

re: #12 Timbre

Don't hold your breath concerning the Vatican evolving--even a doctrine as patently ridiculous as "Limbo of Infants" is still theologically pocketed, though it is not taught in the official Catechism.

I would think they would have to be toddlers at least to do the limbo.

18 Timbre  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:56:16am

re: #17 Colonel Panik

"How low can you go?!"

19 Colonel Panik  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:56:39am

re: #1 Sharmuta

“Evolution and creation do not present the least opposition between them,” he wrote, “on the contrary, they reveal themselves as entirely complementary.”

That's about how I feel on the matter, and just as much so when I look at astronomy, cosmology, and the birth of star, planets and galaxies. I think science brings me closer to God.

So did my man, Niklaus Kopernik.

20 Kosh's Shadow  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:57:08am

This part I agree with:

he rejects not the theory of evolution, but arguments that use Darwin’s ideas to disprove the existence of a creator-God.

I have yet to see a scientific argument against the existence of G-d; I have only seen philosophic and metaphysical arguments.

Unfortunately, just as some religious people use incomplete parts of scientific evidence and theories to say that science cannot explain Creation, some scientists use these non-scientific arguments as "proof" that G-d doesn't exist.

Both sides, to me, are letting their beliefs cloud their judgment.

21 Fenway_Nation  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:57:09am

re: #16 freedombilly

Which game, freedom?

22 Cato the Elder  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:58:33am

re: #14 debutaunt

Tom Leherer with some thread music:

Lehrer is (was?) great - an equal-opportunity satirist.

Wonder what he'd sing about Islam today...

23 freedombilly  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:58:39am

re: #21 Fenway_Nation

Bruins/Caps but I'm behind on the DVR. 2-2 with 6:30 left in the 2nd.

24 swamprat  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:59:12am

re: #16 freedombilly

Nothing goes with hockey and beer like an ID thread!

I went to a boxing match, and an Intelligent Design debate broke out.

25 SFGoth  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:59:44am

Would've been nice if they'd have done this oh, one-frickin'-thousand years ago instead of keeping Europe in the dark ages and enthralled to superstition, magic, and myth. Thanks Vat! Way to go.

26 Fenway_Nation  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:01:22pm

re: #23 freedombilly

Same game- real-time on the Yahoo stream in another window...

27 Cato the Elder  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:02:07pm

More Tom Lehrer: "National Brotherhood Week":

28 abolitionist  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:02:21pm

Well, it took a while for the Vatican to warm up to Galileo.

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.[105][106] Pope Benedict XVI later praised Galileo.[107]
29 swamprat  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:03:12pm

"How can one be aware of Science and Physics, and still believe in a Supreme Being?"


"How could one not?"

30 brookly red  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:05:38pm

re: #29 swamprat

"How can one be aware of Science and Physics, and still believe in a Supreme Being?"

"How could one not?"

Yeah, thats pretty much my take too...

31 Cato the Elder  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:05:51pm

Monty Python - "Never Be Rude to an Arab":

32 Salamantis  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:08:26pm

They're cautiously tiptoing through the scientific minefield now; they learned their lesson when they heedlesly stepped on Galileo and he blew up in their faces.

33 shiek al beif salami  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:08:41pm

re: #28 abolitionist

Speaking of warming up, I finally thought of a name for the AGW crowds' tactics:

McGorethyism.

34 livefreeor die  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:09:08pm

re: #27 Cato the Elder

More Tom Lehrer: "National Brotherhood Week":


One of the greatest songs ever! And frighteningly accurate.

35 Ringo the Gringo  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:10:40pm

When I was in Catholic school my science teacher, who was a priest, told me that the first three days of Genisis exist in "God's time" - not 24 hour Earth days - because it was not until the fourth day that God put the sun and moon into the Earth's sky. Everything before the fourth day occurs in "God's time" and is a mystery which science can help us to understand. He taught us about evolution, in a very general way, which he described as a possible explanation of what occurred over the first three "God days". He told us that the physical body which we call human did evolve, but that it was not "man" before God gave the first "man", Adam, a soul on the fifth day.

This was in Junior High School back in the 1970's.

36 ladycatnip  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:11:15pm

#29 swamprat

"How can one be aware of Science and Physics, and still believe in a Supreme Being?"


"How could one not?"

Upding!

37 brookly red  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:12:19pm

re: #31 Cato the Elder

Monty Python - "Never Be Rude to an Arab":

OK,
so you managed to go from the Vatican to Monty Python in 30 posts...
I'm not sure if that is good or bad, but is certainly efficient. :)

38 Fenway_Nation  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:13:17pm

Wish I stayed awake during chatecism so I'd have a better idea what the church's outlook on this was circa the late 1980s...

/not even sure it came up

39 livefreeor die  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:13:19pm

re: #37 brookly red

OK,
so you managed to go from the Vatican to Monty Python in 30 posts...
I'm not sure if that is good or bad, but is certainly efficient. :)

All roads lead to Monty Python.

40 opnion  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:20:02pm

When I took Theology, I don't remember any attempt to reconcile Evolution with Faith , or any attempt to disavow Evolution for that matter.
What I do remember is being assigned to read the Autobiography of Malcom X.
The Priest teaching the course referred to him as Saint Malcom X.
I strongly dissented & was not punished with a poor grade.

41 alegrias  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:20:24pm

re: #25 SFGoth

Would've been nice if they'd have done this oh, one-frickin'-thousand years ago instead of keeping Europe in the dark ages and enthralled to superstition, magic, and myth. Thanks Vat! Way to go.


* * *
Dear SFG,

With a name like "Goth", weren't your ancestors part of the problem as Visigoths and other primitives who gave way to the islamic invaders starting with Al Andalus?

Your Barbarians paved the way!

42 ConservatismNow!  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:20:41pm

re: #35 Ringo the Gringo

That's probably the smartest and best way to teach evolution in a Catholic school. It's been my interpretation for almost 5 years.

43 freedombilly  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:21:43pm

re: #38 Fenway_Nation

Just caught up. CHARA!

44 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:23:39pm

Small minds wonder about the size of angels' feet vis a vis the space available upon the head of a pin.

/the Farce has a strong effect ...

45 Sharmuta  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:23:57pm

I think it's good that others might see there are many faithful who don't who can and do successfully reconcile their faith with science, and perhaps those folks will go on to reject the pseudo-science and theology of the Disco Institute. I'm glad the Church is an ally of evolutionary theory.

46 freedombilly  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:26:36pm

re: #45 Sharmuta

Well said.

47 mapchic  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:27:15pm

I don't understand why anyone thinks that the Catholic Church is hostile to science. The Catholic Church has throughout the centuries supported the study of science. If you read the Catechism it is very supportive of scientific research ". Many, many great scientists were (and are) Catholic. In particular many of them were vowed religious - Copernicus, Mendel, Lemaitre (first to propose the 'big bang theory') and a whole raft of Jesuits.

Much of the basic science which we know today was first studied by clerics and laypeople who worked with the support of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church NEVER condemned Darwin. Even today if we consider the Catholic schools around the world we can see that the Catholic Church is still working to advance scientific knowledge.

I know that Charles is very interested in this subject lately... and that's great. However, I (as a Catholic) wish that people would top saying 'Christians' are anit-evolution. I am a Catholic Christian who totally believes in evolution... they are not in conflict at all according to my beliefs and the beliefs of my Church. It is a minority of Christians who believe otherwise.

48 Sharmuta  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:28:12pm

re: #46 freedombilly

Except for the typo. Thanks.

49 IgofAntioch  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:30:00pm

As a microbiologist and a theologian with advanced degrees I see the two as complementary as long as one understands that the Scriptures tell us why something happened and Science tries to explain how it happened. Keep these two concepts clear and learn from both!

50 Hengineer  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:30:40pm

re: #9 tradewind

It sooo misses the point. trying to ' reconcile ' science and religion. There is no need.... I can accept that evolution occurred from seeing evidence, just as I believe in God as the Creator by faith..... which is belief in that which cannot be seen or proven by science.

The problem is that there still is a minority of people on both sides who cannot reconcile science and religion.

Another problem is that they usually aren't Catholic, they're fundamentalist of some sort, and won't listen to a word the Pope and/or the Vatican says.

51 Pupdawg  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:32:17pm

Never argue religion when under the influence of science and vice versa.

52 Salamantis  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:33:39pm

re: #50 Hengineer

The problem is that there still is a minority of people on both sides who cannot reconcile science and religion.

Another problem is that they usually aren't Catholic, they're fundamentalist of some sort, and won't listen to a word the Pope and/or the Vatican says.

The most extreme of the fundamentalist Genesis Literalists would most probably view the Catholic Church's evolution-accepting pronouncements as taqiyya by the AntiChrist. That's just the way they think.

53 SFGoth  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:37:33pm

re: #41 alegrias

* * *
Dear SFG,

With a name like "Goth", weren't your ancestors part of the problem as Visigoths and other primitives who gave way to the islamic invaders starting with Al Andalus?

Your Barbarians paved the way!

My ancestors ate brisket and drank wine on Friday night.

54 Dave AAA  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:40:41pm

re: #20 Kosh's Shadow

some scientists use these non-scientific arguments as "proof" that G-d doesn't exist.

It isn't for atheists to prove God does not exist, it's for believers to prove he does. You can't do it. Belief in God's existence is still an act of Faith, not reason. Nothing wrong with Faith, so long as it doesn't make you fly aircraft into office buildings or teach Creationism as science. Fortunately very few people of faith want to do nonsense like that.

55 Charles Johnson  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:41:11pm

Most of the hardcore opposition to evolution emanates from Protestant fundamentalists in the US. So it's not necessarily wrong to say that a lot of Christians are anti-evolution. But I've posted several articles recently on the Catholic Church's more middle-of-the-road approach.

56 Sharmuta  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:47:20pm

re: #55 Charles

It is growing in europe.

57 reine.de.tout  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:50:50pm

re: #45 Sharmuta

I think it's good that others might see there are many faithful who don't who can and do successfully reconcile their faith with science, and perhaps those folks will go on to reject the pseudo-science and theology of the Disco Institute. I'm glad the Church is an ally of evolutionary theory.

I am also glad the Church is an ally of scientific research and knowledge in general.

However, there are those (not here at LGF) who deeply believe that Catholicism is evil and un-Christian, so I would be surprised if the Catholic Church's stance on this would change a lot of those minds.

58 mapchic  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:54:09pm

re: #55 Charles

It is not wrong to say that some Christians oppose evolution on religious grounds. However is is a very small (vocal) minority of Christians who do so.

I hate that I am weirdly in the position of the 'good Muslims' who say that the terrorists don't speak for me. Instead I am a scientifically literate Catholic Christian who says that the anti-evolution wackos don't speak for me.

The key is that many other Christians (like the Catholic Church) make every effort to speak out against the false connection of religion and anti-evolutionism. Evolution is (in my experience k-college) taught in Catholic schools - and as far as I know it is taught across the country and around the world in Catholic Schools.

I do not think that Catholicism has a 'walking on eggshells' approach to the issue at all. As you have shown in several posts hwere they are quite clearly on the side of science in this debate.

59 Achilles Tang  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:55:55pm

re: #20 Kosh's Shadow

I have yet to see a scientific argument against the existence of G-d; I have only seen philosophic and metaphysical arguments.

Unfortunately, just as some religious people use incomplete parts of scientific evidence and theories to say that science cannot explain Creation, some scientists use these non-scientific arguments as "proof" that G-d doesn't exist.

Both sides, to me, are letting their beliefs cloud their judgment.

I think that sometimes the listener thinks they are hearing a "proof" when all they are hearing is an opinion of plausibility.

In truth, it is conceivably possible to prove the existence of God, but it is never possible to disprove, just as it is not possible to disprove anything metaphysical that anyone states; but the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim, not on anyone who doubts it.

As to proving the existence of a creator, Sagan (the atheist) tried to address one possibility in the book "Contact" (not the movie, which only used the name). For those who haven't read it he postulated a message encoded billions of billions of decimal points down an infinite series. PI I think it was.

60 swamprat  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:56:44pm
Still waiting for the government-sponsored, mass-produced, modular solar water heaters. Cheap, light weight, snap together.

Waiting for the electric car that uses AC technology for greater efficiency....

Automobile air conditioning that runs off the engine' excess heat...

Universal Internet access and telephone broadcast to every home via satellite.

Energy drawn off internal combustion engines by using the exhaust heat to drive a steam turbine ...two engines for the fuel of one with reduced thermal footprint.

Piezo-electric elements placed into tires as an additional source of power.

Vegetables that retain nutrition after cooking due to genetic engineering.

Or we could, you know, give the money to further entrench existing bureaucracies....that'd be just as good.

61 KitchenQueen  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:58:50pm

re: #57 reine.de.tout

I am also glad the Church is an ally of scientific research and knowledge in general.

Me too!

However, there are those (not here at LGF) who deeply believe that Catholicism is evil and un-Christian, so I would be surprised if the Catholic Church's stance on this would change a lot of those minds.

The Catholic church's stance might even seem to those who believe Catholism is un-Christian as another reason why they shouldn't change their minds. Sigh.

62 reine.de.tout  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 1:13:36pm

re: #61 KitchenQueen

The Catholic church's stance might even seem to those who believe Catholism is un-Christian as another reason why they shouldn't change their minds. Sigh.

I'm afraid, sister Queen, that you might be right on that.

63 Cato the Elder  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 1:16:56pm

re: #37 brookly red

OK,
so you managed to go from the Vatican to Monty Python in 30 posts...
I'm not sure if that is good or bad, but is certainly efficient. :)

Stream of consciousness, my friend! An unconscionable case of it.

64 swamprat  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 1:17:12pm

re: #60 swamprat

Dingos ate my post saying this was supposed to be on a different thread.

65 Sharmuta  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 1:21:18pm

re: #61 KitchenQueen

The Catholic church's stance might even seem to those who believe Catholicism is un-Christian as another reason why they shouldn't change their minds. Sigh.

I was recently speaking to a Catholic about this, and I knew more about the Church's stance on ID than he did. (But then- I think he may have been reading a Coulter book.) And I most certainly told him that the people pushing ID were very much of the sort that thought he wasn't a real Christian because he's Catholic. I also told him to speak with his Priest. And I was very thankful on this issue I had the ability to turn him to his own Church for guidance. It made the discussion much simpler.

66 Ojoe  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 1:40:42pm

Time to re-post this:

"Evolution & Catholicism Compatible, Pope Says"

Link

Pope Benedict has referred to the debate between creationists and supporters of evolutionary theory as an "absurdity": "They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

More in the link.

67 Miles Smit  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 3:31:39pm

This is a useful update to include, Charles. The Catholic position has always been that the truth is to be pursued, not feared. The forensic science of studying animals and fossils, and cataloging traits, along with the taxonomical art of connecting species, and the metaphysical question of causation are three separate domains.

Unlike the Young Earth Creationist position, the Catholic one connects to Darwin through common natural philosophical forbears—Aristotle, Kant, etc. Obviously, total agreement with the ideological variants of Darwinism (Dawkins' unwitting Schopenhauerian view, e.g.) is very unlikely, as I've commented before.

68 ronsfi  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 3:34:39pm

Hello World

69 [deleted]  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 4:09:22pm
70 Bluecold  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 4:13:47pm

Oh and yes i do believe in evolution.

71 Syrah  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 4:31:59pm

re: #69 Bluecold

The owner of a blog can post about what ever he/she pleases.

72 shiek al beif salami  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 4:34:29pm

re: #60 swamprat

It's why the Constitution uses the phrase "pursuit of happiness," because when the government is involved, we rarely actually get there. Of course, believing in the government is always the triumph of faith over experience.

And faith, as we know, is the root of intelligent design and all other evils.

73 Charles Johnson  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 4:35:47pm

Comments complaining about the subject matter will be deleted. Start your own blog, then I'll come over there and complain about what you post.

74 Syrah  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 4:39:31pm

re: #68 ronsfi

Hello World

HI back at you.

Tell us something about your self and why you wanted to sign up.

75 jaunte  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 4:40:17pm

re: #72 shiek al beif salami

Here's an interesting essay about The Declaration of Independence statement of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and the Bill of Rights switch to "life, liberty and property."
[Link: wrenncom.com...]

76 shiek al beif salami  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 4:42:20pm

re: #73 Charles

Moi?

77 CrowScape  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 4:47:47pm

re: #47 mapchic

I don't understand why anyone thinks that the Catholic Church is hostile to science.


It goes back to the Galileo incident, where people have been brought up to believe that the Church went after him because of his scientific theories, and not because Galileo used an idiot monk as a character in one of his works. Back then, the Church wasn't anti-science, but it sure as hell was intolerant of anyone who insulted it.

It's in the same category as those who believe Columbus was exceptional because he thought the world was round, despite the fact that every educated man in Europe knew the same thing.

78 shiek al beif salami  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 4:47:58pm

re: #75 jaunte

The "short circuit" response is sadly overworked in our media-driven culture, i.e, the flies-in-the-eyes charity porn that is used to extract money from people. We feel badly about what we are shown, but cannot do anything meaningful, so we end up shrugging it off. In the end, I think it results in less empathy in real life.

79 ElCapitanAmerica  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 7:40:54pm

"walking-on-eggshells attitude toward Darwin"?

This statement is highly misleading and quite irresponsible. The Catholic Church has been very clear on this subject, and doesn't have dogma around the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Open any Catholic Bible with commentary to see how this book is and has been interpreted in the Church for quite a while.

What I find more disturbing is the obsession with showing how ignorant religious people are in matter of science, when in fact this is a gross generalization of people of faith.

It's as if some people having moved past the time of the Church's conflict with Galileo. It's time to move on, the Church has. That goes towards you too Charles.

80 Wind Rider  Sat, Feb 28, 2009 9:26:38pm

Far from complaining about the frequency of the topic, Charles, I'm actually giving you a big thumbs up for pushing the issue.

It is an absolutely correct analysis of the situation that fundamentalist evangelical literalists are trying, as hard as they possibly can, to inject a religiously based opinion into what should be a completely secular exercise - the instruction of the scientific method - within which Darwin's Theory is but one data point. The destructive nature of injecting unscientific opinion into this mix, and then insisting that children be instructed to treat this material the same as data arrived at via the scientific process kinda haywires the whole program - a 'program' that, nationally, needs another blow dealt to its' collective effectiveness about as much as the woman that just had 8 kids en vitro needs to get laid again. Ever.

The truly infuriating part about it is the deliberately obtuse and narrow minded nature of the viewpoints involved.

--------------------------

Some random thoughts that have zinged through the noggin while gonkulating about this stuff. . .

Sure makes ya feel like a Stranger in a Strange Land. Thou art god.
* * *
Sliding on magnitude of scale - from the infinitely large to the infinitely small - infinity in both directions. So, our universe. . .a puff of gass in the reality of the next larger magnitude? And what about this 'Big Bang?' after all.

Did Trinity set into motion an extraordinary sequence of events on the next smaller magnitude of reality?

ergo. . .


Edward Teller is God. Heinlein, Asimov, Vonnegut, and Dick are his prophets.

81 darkpixel  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 3:02:02am

The pope - when still just a guy named Ratzinger - tipped his hand when he repeated the phrase 'we look to religion for the why, and science for the how'.

The greatest threat to science isn't from conventional churches or intelligent design supporting school boards. It is from scientists who whore themselves out for grant money, hype evidence for their position while sabotaging opposing views. We see a lot of this now in the AGW 'debate', which has long since stopped being a debate. It is a religion with its own prophets and orthodoxy.

82 thatemailname  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:20:49am

re: #1 Sharmuta

That's about how I feel on the matter, and just as much so when I look at astronomy, cosmology, and the birth of star, planets and galaxies. I think science brings me closer to God.

Well put!

83 wiffersnapper  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 12:09:36pm

I agree with the Vatican.

84 wiffersnapper  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 12:09:51pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

yup

85 Salamantis  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 12:11:58pm

re: #81 darkpixel

The pope - when still just a guy named Ratzinger - tipped his hand when he repeated the phrase 'we look to religion for the why, and science for the how'.

The greatest threat to science isn't from conventional churches or intelligent design supporting school boards. It is from scientists who whore themselves out for grant money, hype evidence for their position while sabotaging opposing views. We see a lot of this now in the AGW 'debate', which has long since stopped being a debate. It is a religion with its own prophets and orthodoxy.

Oh, puh-LEEEZE! The same damn creationist talking points, regurgitated once again. Well, here come the same effective and unanswerable refutations.

Once again the attempt is made to pull empirical science down to the level of dogmatic religion, when dogmatic religion cannot be elevated to the status or empirical science. Both attempts are doomed to fail, because the bright line distinction of the presence of empirical evidence for the assertions of empirical science vs. the absence of empirical evidence for the dogmatic contentions of religion indelibly remains, beyond all endeavors at blurring or erasure.

And once again we see the attempt to slander evolutionary theory by invoking AGW, which is equivalent to trying to slime Abraham Lincoln by invoking Ron Paul, or to discredit plate tectonics by invoking phrenology.

Individual scientists may indeed be biased, but science as a whole has a peer review and experimental repetition mechanism to filter out such bias; scientists can and do make names and careers for themselves by proving other scientists to be wrong, and understanding cleansed of individual bias by critical peers advances.

Please show me the empirical evidence for ID. You can't. Because there isn't any. Because it isn't empirical science; it's dogmatic religion poorly dressed out in a pseudoscientific jargon label for PR propaganda purposes by the Disco Institute.

When scientists band together to try to legislatively force the teaching of evolutionary theory from sunday school lecturns and church pulpits, you let me know.

86 Brit in Japan  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 4:44:36pm

re: #20 Kosh's Shadow

This part I agree with:


I have yet to see a scientific argument against the existence of G-d; I have only seen philosophic and metaphysical arguments.

Unfortunately, just as some religious people use incomplete parts of scientific evidence and theories to say that science cannot explain Creation, some scientists use these non-scientific arguments as "proof" that G-d doesn't exist.

Both sides, to me, are letting their beliefs cloud their judgment.

It's a strawman. Only the devious minds at the Deception Institute will try to tell you the facts of evolution disprove the existence of God.

Many scientists are also Catholics, and no scientist will say; "And this disproves the existence of a god!"

(though some do have atheist hypothesis)

BiJ.

87 Brit in Japan  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 4:47:58pm

re: #81 darkpixel

The pope - when still just a guy named Ratzinger - tipped his hand when he repeated the phrase 'we look to religion for the why, and science for the how'.

The greatest threat to science isn't from conventional churches or intelligent design supporting school boards. It is from scientists who whore themselves out for grant money, hype evidence for their position while sabotaging opposing views. We see a lot of this now in the AGW 'debate', which has long since stopped being a debate. It is a religion with its own prophets and orthodoxy.

Play #1 - pump action fake: "This is not as important as [completely unrelated topic]".

Next play please.

BiJ.

88 Brit in Japan  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 4:51:42pm

re: #79 ElCapitanAmerica

"walking-on-eggshells attitude toward Darwin"?

This statement is highly misleading and quite irresponsible. The Catholic Church has been very clear on this subject, and doesn't have dogma around the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Open any Catholic Bible with commentary to see how this book is and has been interpreted in the Church for quite a while.

What I find more disturbing is the obsession with showing how ignorant religious people are in matter of science, when in fact this is a gross generalization of people of faith.

It's as if some people having moved past the time of the Church's conflict with Galileo. It's time to move on, the Church has. That goes towards you too Charles.

I can't quite see your stance here (you don't have an active verb in the secone-to-last sentence), but is this just a variation on play #2 - the fake handoff? [IE "Stop bashing Christians!"]

BiJ

89 robomatic  Tue, Mar 3, 2009 5:21:06pm

Bobby Jindal, who was profiled on Sixty Minutes this past Sunday was presented as a convert to Catholicism who believed in Intelligent Design.

90 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 3, 2009 7:26:09pm

re: #89 robomatic

Bobby Jindal, who was profiled on Sixty Minutes this past Sunday was presented as a convert to Catholicism who believed in Intelligent Design.

But the Disco Institute crafted creationist bill he signed into law as Louisiana governor is tailored to allow creationist public high school teachers to illegitimately attack evolutionary theory, even though the Roman Catholic Church accepts it as valid, solid sound empirical science.

He will NEVER receive my vote.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 130 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 294 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1