bruto
Penultimate Amazing
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051119/NEWS/511190315/1024/NEWS04
Love them or hate them, good on ya, Rev. Coyne.
Love them or hate them, good on ya, Rev. Coyne.
apocalypse
Student
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 45
Mr. Behe will just say that the Vatican is driven by dogma and refuses to accept change.
Oh, the irony.
When even the Vatican opposes the idea that a supernatural designer is responsible for speciation, you know it's not well supported.
Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
Obviously, the Vatican believes that the ultimate cause of speciation is God. They just recognize that this is a religious belief, not a scientific one.
After all, the ultimate cause of gravity, according to Catholicism, is also God. But that doesn't mean that physics classes should be discussing God.
After all, the ultimate cause of gravity, according to Catholicism, is also God. But that doesn't mean that physics classes should be discussing God.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Maybe if the Vatican had seen this explanation...
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
I said it before in a different thread:
I will not take science advice from someone who believes crackers and flesh are interchangeable.
I will not take science advice from someone who believes crackers and flesh are interchangeable.
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 4,993
I think I should start making a list of sig-worthy quotes like this.
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Thanks for the compliment.
I always find religious infighting amusing.
Your belief is completely lacking in any empirical evidence, is unfalsifiable, makes no predictions, and is based on ignorance. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go quiver with religious ecstasy in front of this weeping piece of marble which happens to be in the shape of a virgin mother.
Last edited:
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
That put me in mind of the fantastic scene in The Wicker Man, where Edward Woodwood is criticizing Christopher Lee because Summerisle school teaches parthenogenesis, the Christopher Lee brings up the Jesus was supposedly the son of a virgin, impregnated by a ghost.
What an odd objection... partheogenesis is a relatively common biological phenomenon - it's what dandelions use most (or is it all?) of the time. Why exactly would it be inappropriate to teach about it?That put me in mind of the fantastic scene in The Wicker Man, where Edward Woodwood is criticizing Christopher Lee because Summerisle school teaches parthenogenesis, the Christopher Lee brings up the Jesus was supposedly the son of a virgin, impregnated by a ghost.
Ok, so we can scratch all of the following scientists and their discoveries off your list, correct? After all, their belief in God utterly invalidates their value as scientists...
John Philoponus
Hugh of St. Victor
Robert GrossetesteRoger Bacon
Dietrich von Frieberg
Thomas Bradwardine
Nicole Oresme
Nicholas of Cusa
Georgias Agricola
Johannes Kepler
Johannes Baptista van Helmont
Francesco Maria Grimaldi
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
John RayIsaac Barrow
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
Niels Seno
James Bradley
Ewald Georg von Kleist
Carolus Linnaeus
Leonhard Euler
John Dalton
Thomas Young
David Brewster
William Buckland
Adem Sedgwick
Augustin-Jean Fresnel
Augustin Louis Cauchy
Michael Faraday
John Frederick William Herschel
Matthew Fontaine Maury
Philip Henry Gosse
Asa Gray
James Dwight Dana
George Boole
James Prescott Joule
John Couch Adams
George Gabriel Stokes
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson
Lord Kelvin
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann
James Clerk Maxwell
Edward William Morley
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem
Georges Lemaitre
George Washington Carver
Arthur Stanley Eddington
The above list is from Dan Graves' book Scientists of Faith (Kregel Resources: Grand Rapids, MI; 1996). The book is subtitled: Forty-Eight Biographies of Historic Scientists and Their Christian Faith.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082542724X/103-4374269-6556664?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance
And I'm reasonably sure that there are plenty of contemporary scientists that are also Christian - not to mention scientists who are Muslim, Hindi, Judaic and other beliefs.
It does not require a male and a female; just a female in the case of skinks. I think this violates the take-two-of-each-kind bit in Genesis' flood myth.
Newton practiced alchemy. That doesn't make his reasoned contributions to science any less valuable. Nor does it make alchemy any more respectable. And frankly, it does cast some light on the quality of his judgment that he accepted the mysticism of alchemy - some even suggest it's evidence of his supposed mercury poisoning.
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
Newton produced valid sciene while dabbling in fake science.
The Vatican has suppressed real science while dabbling in woo. (It is only recently that the Pope has graciously acknowleged that evolution is real science.)
Not really analogous.
Good point. Newton produced some things of great worth. What has religion ever directly produced (instead of "inspiring")?
But how many of them believe that the wafer is actually Christ's body in non-metaphorical way?
(ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_scientists)
Last edited:
A great method of crowd-control, and self-control for budding anarchists, that does not involve real fists, clubs, or guns. Civilization, anyone?
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
A desire for survival created cooperation and therefore crowd control.
Agriculture caused civilization.
Edit: I admit though, religion may be better at the crowd control part.
Edit #2: When did religion ever NOT use fists, clubs, or guns?
Last edited:
Depends on their specific variety of faith... Catholics "believe" that the wafer and wine are instantly transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ; however, they acknowledge that the outward appearance remains that of bread and wine. To me, that's quibbling and one more piece of evidence that the Catholic Church has painted itself into a logical corner. Having said that, dismissing the value of a scientist's comments simply because he has religious beliefs is hardly a credit to the scientific method.
If the Pope were a scientist and offered a scientific theory, I would expect it to be evaluated via the scientific method - and not dismissed simply based on the fact that he's a religious leader. And if the Pope's theory proved accurate, I would expect that to be acknowledged just like any other scientist.
That's asking a lot, I know; people are human regardless of whether they're scientists or holy rollers.
