"Darwin Day" Topic

Hi

Gunfreek, science also follows the rules of logic. Your assertion about Newton is unsupported. Rules of logic dictate that I can respond in kind with "nope".

You have a thesis based on your prejudice not evidence.

"And in the end religion and science are in conflic.
Mabye not for most religisous scientist but for some."

Again, logic, if it isn't in conflict for SOME, then it is not for "all" meaning your assertion is, again, wrong.

"You can not reconcide Science and the virgin birth, you can not say you truly follow only the scientific method and require evidence when large aparts of your faith is simply not possible in the natural world."

Again, first, this is a specific tenent of A religion, not all religion. Second, if you had a bio background, several methods would come to mind. The simplist is that heavy petting and pre-ejaculate has resulted in human pregnancy. So, again, without knowing the variables in the incident or how important it is in the belief system, you have used a specific to dispute a general concept. Curiously, this is the syllogism usually promoted by the ID people!

"Kenneth R. Miller is a evolutionary biologist and a feirce adveary againt ID, hi also happens to be a Catholic.
So he HAS to belive in the holy motherm, virgin brith, and other miricals that are IMPOSSIBLE in the natural world."

Which, again, doesn't support your point! You have made several unsupported assertions based on prejudice.

Your following then insists that ONE conflict would force someone to abandon all. This is where you follow Dawkins AND the IDers. In Dawkins case, the syllogism is that he saw one conflict, the way genesis describes creation, and that ment all religion is wrong. In your case, you are making this decision for another.

Here is the worm in the apple. The IDers are doing the same thing. They point to places in the past where science got it wrong, science is then asserted to claim infallibility, therefore science is wrong.

in essence, you are like the people you disparage. In your universe, the reverse is true, if YOU cannot claim to have all the answers, you have none, therefore your atheism is in conflict with science, therefore you must abandon your religion of Atheism!

Genesis was written by a stone age shepard with no number bigger than 1000 in his vocabulary. If god was explaining origin to him, he couldn't possibly understand. And the issue wasn't getting the biology correct, but the matters of faith and redemption. You know religious bits.

Rocky

I am guessing, gunfreek, because of my wife, I know a lot more current scientists than you. Most of them are religious.

Which means what, exactly? That the small sample size known to you and your wife do not follow the established demographics. Of course, you do know that unbelief is directly proportionate to education levels. Further, it is directly proportionate to science education levels. Both groups are higher than the general public. Polls show that 93% of the NAS scientists are atheists.

Darwin, Dawkins, Hawkins, Wallace are just a small amount of Scientists who lost their faith as their understanding of science progressed. Others, like Newton, saw God's handiwork in the study of the natural world. Others, Like Ken Miller, have modified their religious beliefs to reconcile what they understand of the world. Everyone's mileage varies.

Yes, Science used to be the province of religious men and institutions. Unfortunately, since Religion claimed infallible knowledge of the real, materialistic world, conflict with Science was soon to follow. Religion then began it's retreat from naturalistic and materialistic explanations for observed phenomena. We are still dealing with the fall-out of this conflict today.

Ralph

"Kenneth R. Miller is a evolutionary biologist and a feirce adveary againt ID, hi also happens to be a Catholic.
So he HAS to belive in the holy motherm, virgin brith, and other miricals that are IMPOSSIBLE in the natural world."

Which, again, doesn't support your point! You have made several unsupported assertions based on prejudice.

Actually, Dr. Millers view of himself as a practicing Catholic falls far short of what one would expect from Catholicism. He does not believe in virgin birth, miracles, a young age earth, a literal reading of Genesis, divine creation, the ID movement, etc.

He does believe in chemical abiogenesis, evolution and Dr. Conway-Morris's concept of Biological Convergence.

For further information, consider reading Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".

Ralph

If he doesn't belive the the virgin brith or the holy mother,

Then he is not a catholic, no mater what he calls himself.

I can call my self a bird, but unless I have wings, feathers and can trace my liniage to the dinosaours I'm not a bird no mater how much I stomp around and call my self it.

He is a RC if he says he is, despite not dogmatically believing EVERYTHING in the RCC. If he goes to mass and confessional he's a practicing Catholic. He simply has difficulties with SOME beliefs/doctrines as expressed. How does that make him any different than the early Church writers who had many difficulties and did their best to come to some form of reconciliation?

And I can see a RC scientist saying that desipte the evident scientific impossibility of the Virgin Birth he believes in it anyway: because empirical does not explain metaphysical. The religious scientist is actually the more intuitive enquiring mind, allowing for reality to extend where science has not learned to go….

Hi

Ralph, the issue is the bald assertian without any other proof or context that Gun insists that science and being religious are incompatable.

And using statistics like you do suggests a pattern but it is presented as an absolute.

I really enjoy the concept of an athiest telling a catholic what he must do to be a catholic! Pssst, he isn't in charge of this!

In essence, the on this subject line, the fundimentalists are the atheists!

People who CLAIM to be religious are doing good science. Thus, the premise gun presents if false.

Rocky

Rocky says,

Ralph, the issue is the bald assertian without any other proof or context that Gun insists that science and being religious are incompatable.

I'll stand by what I said already:

Unfortunately, since Religion claimed infallible knowledge of the real, materialistic world, conflict with Science was soon to follow. Religion then began it's retreat from naturalistic and materialistic explanations for observed phenomena. We are still dealing with the fall-out of this conflict today.

There are many instances throughout history that illustrate this incompatibility. The Dover trial was just the latest benchmark case bringing this incompatibility to the public.
My problem with the late Dr. Goulds theory is that I don't think the Magisteria are non-overlapping. If religion kept to the metaphysical world like Doug would like us to believe, there would be no problems, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And using statistics like you do suggests a pattern but it is presented as an absolute.

Huh?

I really enjoy the concept of an athiest telling a catholic what he must do to be a catholic! Pssst, he isn't in charge of this!

Sorry, I'm with Gunfreak on this who at least knows what the Pope would agree to. And he (the Pope)is in charge of this. While I admire Miller, he does get to pick and choose what he considers too stupid for consideration in his belief system, despite what strict Catholic adherences may be.

In essence, the on this subject line, the fundimentalists are the atheists!

Huh? Again.

People who CLAIM to be religious are doing good science. Thus, the premise gun presents if false.

He didn't actually state a premise. A quick rereading will show you that he was wondering out loud. If you want to address an unsubstantiated premise, look no further to your friend, Doug, who states:

The religious scientist is actually the more intuitive enquiring mind, allowing for reality to extend where science has not learned to go….

Science learns to go places?

Ralph

"Places", your word. Metaphysics isn't a "place" in any empirical sense, is it? It might be, but science has nothing to say.

Another "place", literally, that our science has not "gone to" yet is outside of this solar system: so we speculate and hypothesize but don't actually KNOW for sure about these things. Our science hasn't been able to "go there" yet.

The religious scientist has far more "back burner" issues than the atheist scientist has, ergo the religious scientist has more questions. A scientiest not even expecting an answer to "why do we exist in the first place?" isn't even asking the same BIG questions as a religious scientiest is….

"Places", your word. Metaphysics isn't a "place" in any empirical sense, is it? It might be, but science has nothing to say.

Besides semantics, what is your point? That virgin birth is a metaphysical condition, instead of a stunning example of the credulousness of bronze age, desert dwelling illiterates?

Another "place", literally, that our science has not "gone to" yet is outside of this solar system: so we speculate and hypothesize but don't actually KNOW for sure about these things. Our science hasn't been able to "go there" yet.

Utter nonsense! You are very ignorant of the scientific process. We don't have to travel to the Sun to know what it is made of and what powers it. Same with the rest of the universe.

The religious scientist has far more "back burner" issues than the atheist scientist has, ergo the religious scientist has more questions. A scientiest not even expecting an answer to "why do we exist in the first place?" isn't even asking the same BIG questions as a religious scientiest is….

Even more indefensible nonsense.

Ralph

The Sun example is kind of bad too. We know what the outside is, but not the core. I've heard at least four different theories. Not that it matters -- good luck getting to the chewy insides!

Besides semantics, what is your point? That virgin birth is a metaphysical condition, instead of a stunning example of the credulousness of bronze age, desert dwelling illiterates?

Look again: the Christian immaculate conception was "coined" by the very people who formulated our basis for modern laws: the Judeo-Christian slant on Roman law. None of the perpetrators of the belief/doctrine were illiterates, much less stuck in the Bronze Age.

Utter nonsense! You are very ignorant of the scientific process. We don't have to travel to the Sun to know what it is made of and what powers it. Same with the rest of the universe.

How cool is that? We know everything about the universe by just looking at it from our livingroom, so to speak. Why waste money on developing space travel?

Even more indefensible nonsense.

Unassailable broad-brushing, more like. But I am sure you can find some examples of ultra maroons posing as deep thinking scientific types who are also religious….

The Sun example is kind of bad too. We know what the outside is, but not the core.

Ahh…..no. The core is 73.5% Hydrogen and 24.8% Helium. We know how the core heats up. Check out the data sent from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory spaceship (SOHO) for more info.

Again, we didn't have to go to the moon to find out it wasn't made of cheese. Doug's sputtering of:

How cool is that? We know everything about the universe by just looking at it from our livingroom, so to speak. Why waste money on developing space travel?

is unworthy of this thread. No one said we know everything about the Universe, nor did I advocate not traveling into space. This came about due to your nonsensical statement of:

Another "place", literally, that our science has not "gone to" yet is outside of this solar system: so we speculate and hypothesize but don't actually KNOW for sure about these things. Our science hasn't been able to "go there" yet.

As if our scientific knowledge ended at the end of our fingertips. Get real. What we know beyond our solar system is FAR, FAR more that speculation and hypothesis. But then, you would have to avail yourself of this information in order to appreciate this.

Ralph

Yeah, no: it's a case of moving goalposts. It might be -- it might not be. The biggest problem with it is the Standard Solar Model is more "Let there be light" than the account given in Genesis.

Hi

Ralph:"There are many instances throughout history that illustrate this incompatibility."

Semantics here, "Many" isn't "All" or "Every" which is the assertian.

Similarly, gunfreek isn't the pope, or invoke the pope, he, instead, set a criteria of his own. In fact, as far as I know, for the last several hundred years, the Catholics have held that the bible is inspiration and addresses matters of faith and it is NOT asserted to be literally true.

Similarly:"Unfortunately, since Religion claimed infallible knowledge of the real, materialistic world, conflict with Science was soon to follow."

Individuals invoking authority isn't the same as the entire world of religion making this.

And finally, your complaint seems to be that I am addressing Gunfreaks assertians but not dougs? "to praise one thing is not to condemn another". Here the construct isn't absolutist. Doug isn't saying religion has any or all of the truth of this discussion, but you and gunfreek seem to be being the sort of fundimentalist absolutists that you accuse the religious of being. Doug accepts truth from Science AND religions, you accept that there is only one possible view.

Thus doug isn't advocating some crusade for religion, but you ARE advocating a dismissal of religion by making absolutist statements. As I said, I am not religious, my training is in science and engineering, but humility about what I cannot test allows me to not be insistent that these fundamentalist views must be some "TRUTH".

Rocky

Tell me the diffrence between a chatholic and a Protistant.

If you take away their worship of Mary, and all the other demi gods they call saints, they aren't any diffrent(besides the priests love of young boys)

So if you can't tell the diffrence there is none.

So at BEST he might be called a christian, tho he looks to be danguralesly close to deism.
But to give him or him self the label Catholic just dosn't stick
Unless you can show what typical catholic things he does or belives in he's not a chatholic just becasue he goes to a catholic church.

If you do not belive miricals, then I find it hard to call you christian as that kinda the BIG thing,

Becasue if god doesn't preform them, how the hell did Jesus happen,

How do we know? That's what MIRACLE is; an inexplicable event that averts empirical laws.

I have had plenty of these happen in my life. Though my religious faith has undergone (and continues to do so) rather drastic alteration in recent years, I do not pretend that these miraculous interventions (for lack of better terms) can be explained by empirical science: they sure as hell can't be replicated for your perusal….

doug isn't advocating some crusade for religion,

Doug may not be but a lot of people are. ID'ers, young-earthers etc are making a serious attempt to re-present their beliefs as science, and their main tool is lying. A little militant rejection of that sort of nonsense is well overdue.

(As I implied earlier, theres also a fair chunk of non-religious nonsense which needs challenging as well)

Nonsense from any source needs quashing with FACTS. Schools are supposed to teach facts, and fiction AS fiction (to make a point creatively). IDers can have all the "air time" they can muster: imho that will diminish according to the amount of FACTS applied to their assertions. People are not in love with stupidity by nature, and I expect the vast majority of people to reject ID or any other non demonstrable set of assertions. Already, the great majority of religious people don't take their Bible as literal history and certainly not over science. The trend toward this has been going on for generations: I don't see some funky (stoopid) "museum" and blithering IDiots being equipped to undo that progress away from religious superstition.

You possibly worry too much: show some faith in average human intellect….

In fact, as far as I know, for the last several hundred years, the Catholics have held that the bible is inspiration and addresses matters of faith and it is NOT asserted to be literally true.

Several 100's of years, Rocky? Any evidence to back that up? I'd say John Paul II. Remember, Galileo's trial was less than 400 years ago.

And finally, your complaint seems to be that I am addressing Gunfreaks assertians but not dougs?

Hardly a complaint, more of an observation. Gunfreak did not make a frivolous assertion, as Doug did. He "wondered" out loud. Reread his Aug 21 comments and you will see it was a rhetorical quip.

Thus doug isn't advocating some crusade for religion, but you ARE advocating a dismissal of religion by making absolutist statements>

Please point out which of my "absolutist statements" concerned themselves with the dismissal of religion. For the rest, I agree with Imrael.

……but humility about what I cannot test allows me to not be insistent that these fundamentalist views must be some "TRUTH".

Wow, that is some platitude considering we are talking about organized religion attacking scientific principles when they consider Darwinism a threat to their divinely inspired, infallible world view. Humility, indeed.

IDers can have all the "air time" they can muster: imho that will diminish according to the amount of FACTS applied to their assertions.

I'd be more impressed with this if it wasn't for the phenomenon of "confirmation bias". That means that "facts" are held to be true, not based purely on substantiation, but based on how well these facts confirm to our already tightly held beliefs. So if a fact backs up our preconceived notions, we hold the fact to be "true". Unfortunately, we all succumb to that. The only difference is that I was lucky to be taught to be on the lookout for it as part of my undergraduate training. I'd recommend Michael Shermers book: How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science (2001 ISBN 0-613-35413-3) for a good overview.

Ralph

"Confirmation bias" is a big part of how we select things to test. But ultimately it rises or falls on the existence of the hard facts. (Many years ago on the telly there was this interesting little story called "Angels are so Few", where this religious nutjob thought he was an angel going around the neighborhood; until a bored housewife seduced him into her bed. He got all angry and guilty and leaped into the window to "fly away", and froze two storeys up in fear, and realized he wasn't going to test his angelic flying capabilities after all: the reality of the hard fact of gravity took all of his superstition away: if it hadn't, then surely the crash to the ground would have.)

I haven't had any "training", yet have recognized the difference between believing and knowing for virtually my whole life….

Hi

Ralph, This IS an absolutist statement, I didn't need to scroll up:Wow, that is some platitude considering we are talking about organized religion attacking scientific principles when they consider Darwinism a threat to their divinely inspired, infallible world view. Humility, indeed.

A religious nut attacking Darwin is not ALL religious people.

You are correct that SOME people do confirmation bias, some are scientists and in science, we call that "observer bias".

But "all scientists" don't agree, neither do "the religious". Thus, you invented a position not held. And as a point of logic, with your "the religious" point, if ONE avowedly religious person is a scientist, then the statement fails.

And gunfreek deciding he isn't a "real catholic" is just another example of observer bias.

Your "John Paul II" statement is empty. What are you proving with your supposed example? We have two points going here, one is gunfreek requiring a literal fudimentalist view of the bible and, thus, virgin birth, and second weather John Paul the second either opposed darwin OR suppressed science OR asserted that the bible was literally true.

Just tossing it out doesn't make your point. Further, All Catholics don't necessarily follow the pronouncements of the Pope. I am not sure if you have a catholic background or not, but "papal infallibility" isn't accorded to every statement ever, but only a limited number of positions that are actual doctrine.

As for Doug. Actually, you haven't read all the posts. In Doug's case, we had a discussion a while ago about MtDna and "Cohen Markers"…he doesnt have a genetics background, that demonstrates no "lost tribes" in the americas. A tenent held by some around here. In short, Doug accepts that people vary more than you guys who seem to want to pidgen hole the religious.

Rocky

Rocky,

We have differences about what absolutism means, apparently. Your reading comprehension seems a little out of whack too. If you look again, you were asked "which of my absolutist statements concerned themselves with the dismissal of religion." Your example is wrong, clearly.

A religious nut attacking Darwin is not ALL religious people.

I wouldn't characterize the ID/Creationism movement, together with people like Dembski, Johnson and Dr. Behe as "a religious nut". They are organized, politically active, and well funded. My characterization of them as "organized religion" seems to fit the bill. I also understand that they do not represent ALL religious people, and have not made a statement indicating such.

But "all scientists" don't agree, neither do "the religious". Thus, you invented a position not held. And as a point of logic, with your "the religious" point, if ONE avowedly religious person is a scientist, then the statement fails.

I don't remember saying anything remotely like this. I don't even understand your point.

Your "John Paul II" statement is empty. What are you proving with your supposed example?

You stated, without any evidence, that the Catholic Church, for the last few hundred years, has admitted that the Bible is NOT asserted to be "literally true". I found that difficult to believe, especially since the Church had some difficulties with Galileo for contradicting these "literal truths". I suggested the 1979 Proceedings of the Pontifical Council, where John Paul II stated, ""…the Bible does NOT contain specific scientific truths but speaks metaphorically about such events…" (1979, Pontifical Academy of Sciences). If you find an earlier example, I'd be happy if you shared it with me.

By the way, that is my "supposed example".

We have two points going here, one is gunfreek requiring a literal fudimentalist view of the bible and, thus, virgin birth, and second weather John Paul the second either opposed darwin OR suppressed science OR asserted that the bible was literally true.

Again, I never said anything remotely like this. I'll let Gunfreak answer for himself.

Further, All Catholics don't necessarily follow the pronouncements of the Pope. I am not sure if you have a catholic background or not, but "papal infallibility" isn't accorded to every statement ever, but only a limited number of positions that are actual doctrine.

Sorry, I agree with you here. My heroes, Dr. Ken Miller and Ken Threkeld are examples of this. But I think Gunfreak is correct in asking whether following Catholic doctrine is not considered mandatory by the Catholic Church in order to be considered a Catholic. Personally, I don't have a dog in that fight.

As for Doug. Actually, you haven't read all the posts. In Doug's case, we had a discussion a while ago about MtDna and "Cohen Markers"…he doesnt have a genetics background, that demonstrates no "lost tribes" in the americas. A tenent held by some around here.

I have read all the posts in the thread, with a little more care than some. The fact that mDNA studies show some of Mormonism's tenets are flawed has little to do with ID's attacks upon Darwinism, and so I haven't commented on them.

n short, Doug accepts that people vary more than you guys who seem to want to pidgen hole the religious.

Aahhh….would that qualify as an absolutist statement?

:^)

Ralph

I haven't had any "training", yet have recognized the difference between believing and knowing for virtually my whole life….

Nice story, but it has nothing to do with confirmation bias (or observer bias).

I never said he has to belive in genisis to be a Catholic, I said he had to belive in the virgin birth and the holy mother, as THATS WHAT IS CATHOLISM

It's like saying you don't belive jesus was the son of god, but still want to call your self christian.

Gunfreak, your clarification makes sense, but only from an absolutist point of view: not everyone is an absolutist.

All the time, I hear that Mormons are not Christians, because of not sharing some (denom-determined) essentials that have been asserted to DEFINE what a Christian is. Mormons, otoh, always insist that they are Christians. If some scientist-type was born and raised RCC and continues to associate him/herself as such, their personal (even stated) beliefs not in harmony with RCC doctrine does not make them not a Catholic.

It's like that geneticist doctor from OZ (blanking on his name, sorry) that a number of years ago dissociated himself from being a Mormon on the basis that the Book of Mormon is not true (claiming that Native Americans are "Hebrew" transplants), based on a total lack of DNA corroboration/evidence: in his case he positively removed himself from association as a Mormon. Then take by contrast Grant H. Palmer, who wrote a book on Mormon Origins and got disciplined for it (not excommunicated, but close): he continues to associate himself AS a Mormon, even though he blatantly disbelieves ALL of the essential doctrine-based stories establishing Mormonism as unique. You or I can point to such and say "he's not what/who he says he is", but that's only an absolutist judgment.

It is possible for a scientist to be devoutly religious and a thoroughly effective scientist at the same time. Virgin birth notwithstanding, such a Catholic scientist can assign it squarely to metaphysics and close the book on it scientifically. This happens all the time….

Hi

Ralph:"Your reading comprehension seems a little out of whack too. "

Or you don't read your stuff the way someone NOT YOU would read it. This is a writer's trap, you KNEW what you ment, but left a different point.

Your "Galileo" point is an example. I said "several hundred years"…and you said "but Galileo" as a response, which was more than several hundred years ago.

I don't know when or if the catholics EVER treated the bible as fundy literal truth. I believe the contemplations of Thomas Aquinas over a thousand years ago are an example. You know a "saint". The problem, of course, is multiple and varied with the bible being literally true. Lanquage isn't fixed, but fluid, and terms shift. A modern example is the meaning of "being gay". The church tried really hard to make a given version of latin the only correct church version of langage, and it failed. So, somehow stating a date when the catholics stopped being literalist is difficult as I am not sure that they ever were. I would suggest references, but I don't think you have an interest.

As for "christ as god"…actually that was a serious contrversy in the church in the first millennia. One group, called "the arian heresy" asserted exactly that. And resulted in the Nicean Creed which was an agreement on point of faith. And if you go back to that Nicean creed, you will not that these are not fundamentalist points drawn from the actual bible.

There are catholic works on "virgin birth" that discuss the concept that it isn't a literal biological truth, but a metaphroical one. A woman so pure of spirit so as to have a perfect son, rather than the spurious idea that a married jewish young woman would not have sex with her husband (James the brother of Jesus?)

But a side issue.

both of you have made false assumptions and then worked from there to prove a point not in evidence.

Again, a basic syllogism, there are nuts claiming to be catholics or christian and supporters of ID doesn't demonstrate the concept that BELIVERS are anti-science. The specific doesn't prove the general.

Rocky

Rocky,

Or you don't read your stuff the way someone NOT YOU would read it. This is a writer's trap, you KNEW what you ment, but left a different point.

Your "Galileo" point is an example. I said "several hundred years"…and you said "but Galileo" as a response, which was more than several hundred years ago.

No "writers trap" here I believe, Rocky. I was being very clear. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest 376 years ago. I think most people will consider that as "several hundred years ago".

So, somehow stating a date when the catholics stopped being literalist is difficult as I am not sure that they ever were.

Well, they seemed to be when one reads the transcripts of Galileo's trial. If Catholicism was never "literalist", then why would John Paul II go to the trouble stating the obvious in 1979? If everyone knew that "….the Bible does not contain specific scientific truths but speaks metaphorically on such events….." why would he feel the need to state such a thing at the Academy of Sciences?

I believe the contemplations of Thomas Aquinas over a thousand years ago are an example. You know a "saint".

I actually know that Aquinas is a "saint", thank you. I also know he wasn't around "over a thousand years ago". I further know that you actually mean another saint, Saint Augustine. In his, "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis" he warns Christians against using Scripture to make scientific statements:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation". (section 1:19-20, Chapt 19, Vol 1).

I don't believe that the Catholic Church formally adopted this viewpoint until recently. I'd be interested to be shown otherwise.

But a side issue.

Your diversions on Arianism vs Trinitarianism and whether virgin birth was biological or metaphorical is outside of the scope of this topic. If it is good enough for Dr. Ken Miller, then it's fine with me. Like I said before, I don't have a dog in that fight.

both of you have made false assumptions and then worked from there to prove a point not in evidence.

Dr. Miller has indicated what part of Catholic doctrine he does not believe in. That is not an assumption, it is a statement of fact found in his books, "Only a Theory" and "Finding Darwin's God". Again, I don't care. Gunfreak is free to disagree, and I would guess Dr. Miller would welcome his skepticism.

BTW, are you in Colorado? Ken Miller is giving a talk in Denver on Nov. 13-14 at the National Association of Biology Teachers Convention. It might be worthwhile checking him out, if it is not too far.

Again, a basic syllogism,…

Sorry to be pedantic here but what follows is not a syllogism. Your conclusion doesn't contain any terms in common to both premises, does it?

You have, instead, cataloged three facts here:

……there are nuts claiming to be catholics or christian ……

There are some non-believers who are nuts too! Btw, you are the only one mentioning "nuts". The ID movement, that Gunfreak and I are against, is not made up of the "lunatic fringe" of the Christian spectrum. If it was, it wouldn't be such a threat.

…..supporters of ID doesn't demonstrate the concept that BELIVERS are anti-science.

Correct. Supporters of ID don't represent all religious believers. No one said that. However, most Americans share beliefs held in common with the IDers. IDers are just ignorant of what science is, what the scientific method is, and what scientific definitions really mean. And they want to subvert this "scientific materialism" by removing it from the classroom, or at very least throw in the seeds of doubt and offer a religious based viewpoint instead. This is NOT my assertion. This is the game plan, known as "the Wedge" which is play book of the ID/Creationist/Young Earther movement.

The specific doesn't prove the general.

Depends on the sample size, doesn't it? Isn't that the way polls and surveys are done?

Ralph

Doug,

Interesting philosophical points.

If some scientist-type was born and raised RCC and continues to associate him/herself as such, their personal (even stated) beliefs not in harmony with RCC doctrine does not make them not a Catholic.

Ok, then I'll state, "I am a Mormon!" Am I a Mormon now?

I mean, if a Catholic whose "personal (even stated) beliefs not in harmony with RCC doctrine" can be a Catholic, then can I, whose personal and stated beliefs are not in harmony with the LDS Church, profess to be a Mormon?

Ralph

Profess all you like. But are you baptized and a member of record? Are you a former member now excommunicated? If neither is the case, then you can't begin to claim to be a Mormon (or Catholic)….

So not believing in Mormon beliefs doesn't NOT make me a Mormon, but lack of baptism does?

Ralph

Hi

legalistically, and you started the pedantic part above, err, ya!

Ralph, the pope repeated in '79, the thesis of Aquinas(I mistyped as all of us do) which was held when I grew up in catholic school. Your point is that you want a specific date when a position was changed by the church on this matter. It is a form of "when did you stop beating your wife".

The point of the nicean was two fold. One, there wasn't an agreement or any sort of fundy attittude in the christian church and that the creed was an attempt to get an agreement. In no place in any writing involving Paul, early church fathers is there a unified stated opinion on the literal truth of the bible.

You see ID as a thread due to faulty reasoning. First you assert they are some sort of major threat. Which is not in evidence. Your "proof" seems to be that because a fringe fundy group pleads for ID in schools, that this is a major threat. I can point out much larger movements in people advocating for things in the schools that are actually at risk of being effected.

The confusion is mixing people's attempts to get their way as some sort of general indictment of all christians or religious.

And how many is "several" in your universe? Notice I am not arguing with your facts, just the using your facts as accepted points for the conversation.

And here is the good part, you see the church suppressing Galileo as an anti-science or anti-something. I would point out that Galileo's pronoucements didn't produce a "V8" moment where every scientistin Europe suddenly held that position. AT THE TIME, others disputed his ideas.

A better example of this idea of monolithic attitudes for "all catholics" or "all christians" is in birth control! Some see it as bad. But Catholics in america, largly practice birth control against the pronouncements of the pope. Yet are not ex-communicated!

You really need to go back and read your own posts. You suggested "all" and now talk about these ID guys as "wedge". But in fact, this part of the thread started with Gun's assertian that science and religion are incompatable.

And you work with "Actually, Dr. Millers view of himself as a practicing Catholic falls far short of what one would expect from Catholicism. He does not believe in virgin birth, miracles, a young age earth, a literal reading of Genesis, divine creation, the ID movement, etc."

There is no "Catholic test" here. And there is no demonstration on your part that holding this is a requirement. I would tell you anecdotal that in the 50s in gradeschool, a nun asked the question "If genesis is correct, where did the wife of cain from from when he left?

A literal bible has never, to my knowledge been doctrine.

As for your insistence on "divine" creation. As I know of no way to test your postion that creation wasn't caused by god…. you have made a statement of faith.

Are you a fundamentalist atheist?

You knew what you ment with "IDers are just ignorant of what science is, what the scientific method is, and what scientific definitions really mean?" I would offer that most people have no idea on what any of these things mean either. This makes the insistence as some sort of proof a null set. Few people in the population understand science, probability. People have few math skills.

So, why single out the religious for this? They have an incorrect opinion. And?

What do you propose?

Rocky

If you are going to claim to be RC, the Church has to admit that you are a member of record, or were at some point. Miller IS a member of the RCC; his beliefs and unbeliefs simply make him out to be "liberal or conservative", not dissociated. With the inclusion of science into EVERYTHING, religious people have to arrive at some kind of compromise in order to explain their faith to first themselves and then to others: because the "old ways" don't fit anymore. One day, our world view won't fit into the future's world view either: but I don't see personal religion ever going extinct: empirical science will never have ALL the answers to the mystery of Existence….

Ralph, the pope repeated in '79, the thesis of Aquinas….

Until you can quote me the relevant passage in Aquinas, it is still Augustine that Pope John Paul II emulates in that passage. The title of Augustine's book is a giveaway. Despite how farseeing Augustine was, it doesn't mean the Church accepted his viewpoint. For the third time now, by the time of Galileo, the church was championing the Ptolemaic version of the solar system, not because it was a better explanation of natural events, but because it conformed to the literal writing in the Bible. Read the transcripts. This error is what John Paul II sought to address in 1979 and he called up Augustine in support.

BTW, you didn't mistype Aquinas, beats me what you mean.

Now to stay on topic.

You see ID as a thread due to faulty reasoning. First you assert they are some sort of major threat. Which is not in evidence. Your "proof" seems to be that because a fringe fundy group pleads for ID in schools, that this is a major threat. I can point out much larger movements in people advocating for things in the schools that are actually at risk of being effected.

Well Rocky we will have to disagree here. What I see as a threat, you clearly don't. Luckily some parents in Dover, PA (Kitzmiller, et al, for just 1 example) saw it as a threat and took their school board to court. Various Biology Profs and scholars saw it as a threat and took the time to present their case at this hearing. Ken Miller was one of them. He certainly sees it as a threat, if you take the time to read his writings. I'm in good company.

Secondly I'll have to agree to disagree (for the third time) on your characterization of the ID movement as "Nuts", or "a fringe fundy group". They are neither, and hold most of the same convictions as do the majority of Americans. This last part is not an assertion on my part, but a finding of the ARIS polls, whose data is used by literally hundreds of organizations today, including governments. Also a 2005 Harris poll indicated that 54% of American do not believe in evolution. Some fringe.

And finally your assertion that there are larger, more threatening movements out there doesn't have any bearing on the dangers that ID pose to our scientific education. These "larger groups", are they lobbying to alter the school curricula? Are they well funded? While based on falsehood, are they still supported by a sizable portion of the general public? (These are rhetorical questions by the way).

You really need to go back and read your own posts. You suggested "all" and now talk about these ID guys as "wedge".

Jeez Rocky, you totally misread, or skimmed over all the arguments having to do with the "Wedge".

Are you a fundamentalist atheist?

A meaningless question. If you knew the origin of the term fundamentalist you would know why. If we are using modern day, arbitrary, colloquial definitions of fundamentalism, then I like Dawkins' version the best, "clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence." I suppose in either case the answer is no.

You knew what you ment with "IDers are just ignorant of what science is, what the scientific method is, and what scientific definitions really mean?" I would offer that most people have no idea on what any of these things mean either.

Sure, and I'm sure you and I are ignorant of a great many things. But we don't push this ignorance upon others. And we don't distort science to conform to our world viewpoint. And we don't invoke God in our doing so.

So, why single out the religious for this?

What do you mean? I don't single out ALL the religious people for somehow distorting or holding back science. I never have written that either, as a careful rereading of my posts will show.

However, it must be obvious to everyone that the ID movement, the Creationism movement, the Young Earth movement are all faith based organizations. And it is through religious belief that they make their appeal to their constituents. Why do 54% of the American public disavow the fact of evolution? Do you think that they have serious misgivings about the science? Or do you think it is because it seems to contravene their deeply held religious convictions? I know which one I believe to be the reason. I am also not aware of any atheistic ID movement, and if one existed, I would be vehemently opposed to having them push their non-science into a science class also.

What do you propose?

1) A continued separation of church and state is paramount to the development of a healthy free democratic society.

2) More funding for education, especially science in grade school levels. Higher pay for teachers.

3) Continuing monitoring and challenging groups and movements which seek to push religion, non-science and pseudoscience into the science class. Support organizations such as the National Center for Science Education, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and others of that ilk.

4) Get away from the TV and video games and read a little more. Take continuing education courses. Take a high school or university science course. Try to develop your critical faculties. Try to be informed of the issues facing/threatening Education in your city/state/country. Skip Maxim and FHM for one month and pick up Discovery, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, Skeptic or the Skeptical Inquirer instead.

Ralph

PS I didn't respond to much of your entry as it was off topic, interesting as your points were. I'll also let Gunfreak answer for himself.

……empirical science will never have ALL the answers to the mystery of Existence….

Aaahhh…….. the rallying cry of those who slept through high school science classes.

Why is this line always hauled out of the dank, dark closet of "deliberately misleading statements" and dusted off for our perusal?

Ralph

Here's an articles the historians in us can enjoy. It likes the idea of the IDiots to that people who deny the existence of the known historical facts:

link

Also a 2005 Harris poll indicated that 54% of American do not believe in evolution. Some fringe.

Well in a league table of developed countries the US ranks only marginally above Turkey in not accepting the fact of evolution. In Western Europe the percentage drops into the low teens.

SO what is wrong with the US? When one of our two major political parties sold out to the the 'Religious Right' we're bound to get ed up school policies.

Just because there is a majority for ignorance doesn't make them right.

As I said there is a BIG diffrence bewteen literal geisis and the virgin birth.

If you don't belive in a personal god you can't be a christian, you have to base atleast SOMETHING of your faith on the bibel, and it has to besomthing that is uniqe to it.

Just saying you are a christian because you follow the golden rule, dosn't make you so, as you find it in other religions and no religious philosophy

So unless you base something of your belives and life on whats in the bible you are not a chrisitan, hell if you don't base any of your belives on any of the holybooks or doctrines of faith around the world you arn't even a theist, but at worst a deist

My mom and stepth dad called them self Chrisitans as they were raised in the Church of Norway, but when I pressed them on just what they belived, it became clear that they were deist not theist.
They don't belive in a personal god, nor prayer or salvation, they don't belive in heaven or hell, or a after life.

The only thing they belived was that the world is to fantastic to "just happend" and that some intelligence created the universe.
This is ofcourse a possosion from ignorance, and had they known more philosophy and science they would probebly not be diest either.

And lots of people call them self "christian, Hindu or Muslim" When they in reality are deist, they simply use labels Hindu ect. becasue those around them were and that the belived in some god, they simply havn't gotten around to think and realise that their god is not the same as those around them, and infact is bearly a god at all

Hi

Ralph, I am amazed that you never made the mistake of thinking about one name and saying or writing another. My wife often used to just yell the names of the kids in sequence of age when she was only looking at one of them.

I was thinking aquinas.

AND, What you seem to misunderstand is that I don't disgree mostly, except when you seem to be attacking people FOR being religious. And supporting rather than opposing gunfreaks, what, "fundimental athiesm".

The Dawkins link above is a case in point. Dawkins in the first part of the article(and much of his book) starts with the religious acceptace in modern times, and then spends the second half demanding, as gunfreek does, that this isn't enough. It is not enough for these guys to accept the concept of evolution, they must also deny their belief in god.

Yup, we are cousins of apes, sort of. I have had the privilage of actually, as one example. measuring the Dart finds some 40 plus years ago. For ME, this was an amazing moment.

But lets look at the thinking here. That we need to not only explain evolution BETTER, but make the logic leap that there is no god. That evolution could not be the "prime mover". There is no way to test this.

Fleishman and Pons were local. "Cold Fusion". And when I expressed doubt, I have a numbers sense and something seemed wrong with the results to me, I was told that I didn't understand, by my chemist friend, that i didn't understand the process. But they were wrong. Oddly, that led to locals running things over my "sense" of things. a distraction.

But the ultimate point is that Dawkins is right and incorrect. He is right that Genesis is no model of biology(and outside his field, no model for cosmology or math). But the follow on that "there is no God" is a logical leap based on his prejudice.

And you leave this as a fight to the death. It isn't enough for the quoted religious leaders to say they accept evolution. The insistnace from Dawkins is that they must now do a "galileo" and disavow everything else that involves spirituality.

Examining Dart's astrolopithecines was a repeatable event. Testing for god isn't. Therefore, Hawkings opinion is advocating not science.

Gunfreek: let me explain a basic fact. In order for you to be a member of "The Miniatures Page" you must meet the criteria set by bill. And bill has you as a member. If I said "you cannot be a member if you don't game napoleonics because that is the only "real" wargame, therefore your "gaming" is no gaming at all, therefore you are not a proper member of the miniatures page"…would be fatuous at best. But this is what you have done. You have decided to tell the pope who is a member of the catholic church by selecting YOUR criteria. As the linked Dawkins quote (I just accidentally typed Hawkins!) The pope accepts evolution personally, therefore….

It isn't your place to tell others if they belong to an organization you don't approve of!

I was 10 when I explained in catechism class in catholic school that I didn't believe in "original sin". I later had a conversation with my archbishop on this and other subjects which I thought would end with the nuns killing me despite not believing in capital punishment. The archbishop LOVED the discussion and saved me. No one excommunicated me, I wasn't expelled from catholic school. Oh, and I was not allowed in the discussion to quote the bible because "it isn't literal truth, just a source of inspiration".

Even Dawkins seems to accept the concept.

Rocky

……empirical science will never have ALL the answers to the mystery of Existence….

Aaahhh…….. the rallying cry of those who slept through high school science classes.

Why is this line always hauled out of the dank, dark closet of "deliberately misleading statements" and dusted off for our perusal?

I didn't sleep through science classes that I didn't take.

Why resort to tired rhetoric to object to an assertion that you disagree with?

Do you have some "faith" that science will transcend thousands of years of metaphysical philosophizing and grasp the ultimate "42"? If so, would you be so disposed as to show why?

I am not "deliberately misleading"; what would be the point?

I sincerely believe that empirical science is not equipped, and imho will never be equipped, to study the metaphysical aspects of Existence: i.e. science will never explain Existence in the first place….

"Gunfreek: let me explain a basic fact. In order for you to be a member of "The Miniatures Page" you must meet the criteria set by bill. And bill has you as a member. If I said "you cannot be a member if you don't game napoleonics because that is the only "real" wargame"

That's a VERY bad example we aren't talking napoleonics vs ACW

We are talking about EVERYSIGNLE wargame, including board games, warhammer and risk,

If you play none of them, then yes I can say you are not a wargamer

If you don't belive anything in the bible you are not a christian

Ralph, I am amazed that you never made the mistake of thinking about one name and saying or writing another.

Oh Rocky, if you only knew. I'm more mistake prone than most. I re-read my potential posts 3 times and still errors creep through.

…..except when you seem to be attacking people FOR being religious.

Which I have not done, as a careful reading of my posts will show. It seems that I have typed this response to you already. Ah yes, it is in yesterdays post, where I answer your question, "Why single out the religious?" You must have missed it.

Ralph

Hi

Gunfreak, again a odd leap of logic. You made specific assertians about what someone hand to believe if they were to be a catholic. Now you say "anything in the bible/christian".

The discussion was the concept of the bible being literally true. Not if you believe some, none or all of the bible.

I have been exorcised by the religious who thought I was a demon for explaining the problems with a literal reading of the bible. And some of those arguments were ones I learned as a kid in catholic school.

Ralph, I haven't gone back and re-read your posts three times. What I observe is that when Gunfreak makes statements and I oppose his views, you only address my objections. This suggests that you are in agreement with Gunny!

Anyway, Ralph, I direct you to your post above with the rhetorical questions. These don't seem to be other than an attack on the religious and an agreement with Gunny that science and belief are incompatible. Even suggesting that there are believers dismisses the accusation.

Some of your other points are just wrong. Frankly I was amazed about "who believes in evolution" statement. I personally have spent a lot of time arguing FOR evolution not to people who reject it on religious grounds, but people who believe or don't believe based on a complete understanding on how and what it actually is.

Like, oddly, Dawkins explaining the meaning of "theory". In the world a great way to get people to answer "NO" to evolution is the "theory" word.

The school systems are in failure here.

Which is why I am not sure I care much about schoolboards who try to put in ID. They cannot teach the kids to read and write, but they are going to make them christian fundamentalists?

But perhaps you have it right. I mean a lot of school children seem to be convinced that not using the right light bulbs has produced the situation of drowning Polar Bears..they saw it in a movie at school!

RAF…I am not sure what your attack on the US is about. You might be familiar with "lies, damned lies and statistics" by "Mark Twain". Without knowing HOW the question was phrased in every language it was asked, you might just be falling into the fundi trap. The original 10 commandments, for instance, uses a word meaning "murder" and the fun history of the literal truth of the bible is the enlightened people doing the "King James" deliberately substituted "kill" in hopes of gentling society.

The "right" didn't sell out to the religious right, there is an religious left(which advocates effective communism among other things) and the problems with teaching evolution were in place under left wing administrations as well. Attacks based on news reports rather than actual facts.

Rocky

If you don't belive anything in the bible you are not a christian

I don't know anyone, not even non believers, who can't find something in the Bible to believe.

But I am taking advantage of your English as a second language.

Your point seems to be that to be a Christian you must believe THE Bible, i.e. all of it. To claim this would leave very few Christians in the world. The reality is that almost all believers have personal difficulties with parts of the Bible. This doesn't change either their believing status or their efficiency as scientists….

I didn't sleep through science classes that I didn't take.

There's a surprise. :^)

I am not "deliberately misleading"; what would be the point?

You are not misleading, Doug, but that statement is.

First off, saying "empirical science" is like saying "dark blackness" and hence meaningless. You see the adjective is contained within the noun. All science, by its modern day definition, is empirical, just as when describing black we know it is dark. Seeing "empirical science", on the written page makes people want to know what other "science" you could mean.

Secondly, everyone that took science, and didn't sleep through it, knows full well that science deals with the materialistic world. No one conversant in science would ever claim that every mystery can be dealt with by materialist observation and testing. The only people who trumpet crap like, "Science can't prove everything!" are the ones most ignorant of Science.

Do you have some "faith" that science will transcend thousands of years of metaphysical philosophizing and grasp the ultimate "42"?

No. But, on the other hand after thousands of years of metaphysical philosophizing how is the grasp of "42" coming along? After how many more thousands of further years before you realize that A) there is no Answer or B) It is a stupid question in the first place. And, in case you missed it, that is the whole point behind Douglas Adams' "42".

Ralph

I never said you had to belive everything in the bible to be a christian, but you have to belive somethings, and spesificly stuff from the new testament.

If you don't belive atleast part of the jesus myth, then why call your self a christian, christianity is Jewish myth + jesus myth.

You might not have to belive all from the jewish part, but you have to belive atleast something that is super human from the jesus part.
After all if jesus din't bring the new updated word of good, what the was the point of the new testament,
And talking to god or knowing what god wants is supernatural,
And from what I've gather Miller rejects all supernatural, so how can he call him self a catholic.

If you can't tell the diffrence bewteen a catholic and protostant, whats the point of the label.

If you can't tell the diffrence between a deist and theist, then they arn't theist.
If you can't tell the difrence between a Atheist and Catholic, then, well you get the point

Seeing "empirical science", on the written page makes people want to know what other "science" you could mean.

Metaphysical, of course. Try not to cringe.

The only people who trumpet crap like, "Science can't prove everything!" are the ones most ignorant of Science.

What I have been saying all along is that science isn't there yet: we have a metaphysical "component" to Existence and science remains incapable of even detecting it. Science cannot relate to the metpahysical: I expect that to change one day (thus producing a bona fide metaphysical science): but we still won't EVER be able to satisfy a purely scientific explanation for, "why Existence instead of Void"?

42

Wasn't that his age when he wrote that part?

It (wondering about why life, the universe and everything instead of Void) isn't a stupid question. I reckon Adams just gave up on it like all of us do sooner or later. I suspect I too will give up on it and recline watching telly with the vapid Brit housewife 'puter for millions of years. But until then….

If you don't belive atleast part of the jesus myth, then why call your self a christian, christianity is Jewish myth + jesus myth.

But if I understand correctly Miller doesn't disbelieve in Jesus Christ: just some RC aspects of exegesis. He's a Christian and a Catholic, just not a simple (plain) one….

You might not have to belive all from the jewish part, but you have to belive atleast something that is super human from the jesus part.

I bet Miller allows that Jesus Christ could be God manifesting as one of us, ergo a "superhuman" part. I certainly don't accept most of what the Bible says about Jesus' Godhood, or at least as particularly or especially different from any of us. That's the part of the point of "the Jesus story" that I am drawn to in fact: that "God" lived as a mortal in a way that attracted attention from the rest of the world down to the present time, and that that manifestation taught with insight about our relationship to "God" and each other. I am interested by the concept of "joint heirs with Christ" and being "sons and daughters of God": those concepts do make man "a little lower than the angels", which I find not only uplifting but a whole lot more convincing than the "fallen man" crap. I think the way we are NOW is the way we always are: we probably just do this "mortal game" stuff a lot, forever, always learning more about "God" and Existence, but never ending/finishing.

And from what I've gather Miller rejects all supernatural, so how can he call him self a catholic.

Maybe I can relate to this: I also reject anything supernatural. To me there is always an explanation, empirical or metaphysical (perhaps both): so there shouldn't be any such thing as "supernatural". Existence itself is as supernatural as "it" gets (why not just a Void instead of Existence?); so everything about it is natural to Existence. The only Cause outside of Existence itself is "God", the only "Supernatural". We can't comprehend "God" in total; so "God" manifests within Existence and is coming at us from all directions all the time: there is no such thing as supernatural communication from "God", only constant contact in a myriad of endless ways….

(I keep forgetting that this ain't the Fez. Oh it….)

Ralph, I haven't gone back and re-read your posts three times.

That's not what I meant. I meant that I read my posts at least 3 times to make sure I haven't screwed up somewhere, before I hit the submit button.

Anyway, Ralph, I direct you to your post above with the rhetorical questions. These don't seem to be other than an attack on the religious and an agreement with Gunny that science and belief are incompatible.

I can't find any "attack on the religious" in that post. Maybe you could quote the offending section so I can tell what you mean.

Ralph

Metaphysical, of course. Try not to cringe.

Too late.

Ok, I'll bite. What is an example of "Metaphysical Science"? ESP Studies? The Yuri Geller Institute of Advanced Spoon Bending? UFO Studies? I'm sure Intelligent Design would fit the bill.

Wasn't that his age when he wrote that part?

No, Doug. He is giving an arbitrary stupid answer to an arbitrary stupid question. He has written about this.

It (wondering about why life, the universe and everything instead of Void) isn't a stupid question. I reckon Adams just gave up on it like all of us do sooner or later.

No, if fact it is the opposite. I think Adams felt the same as David Seaman's quote, "There is no point in life, and that is exactly what makes it so special." Also you didn't answer the question, after untold millenia discussing the metaphysical nature of the meaning of life is anyone closer? How many more millenia do we waste on this?

Ralph

RAF…I am not sure what your attack on the US is about.

Not to jump on RAF's topic but this is not an attack on the US but a sad indictment of it. The study that RAF brings up is discussed in detail by Ken Miller in his "Only a Theory" book. He doesn't have any qualms about the statistical accuracy of the study, and is clearly embarrassed by it's implications. Now if you want a more rigorous treatment consider Allan Blooms "The Closing of the American Mind".

Ralph