Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Posted on 10/06/2005 12:32:21 PM PDT by NYer
So catholicism placated the aligator by agreeing with it and is now shocked the aligator isn't waiting till last to eat them... When one compromises God's word, one has little excuse for complaint in the matter of living with the consequence of having so done. Just something to ponder..
Heh, kinda telling ain't it..
Hmmm.. could one say the same thing about religion lol.
Darwin's underlying philosophical thesis is that men are just clever beasts.
Therefore there is no transcendent basis for morality.
dream on...
Erm... You can read, right? "Law" and "Custom" in Darwin's time included anti-fornication laws, anti-adultery laws, and social penalties for sexual misbehavior. Darwin can be easily enlisted in support of polygamy and concubinage.
And I'm no crevo, Mr. Heresy Hunter.
...and they are not rare. I cannot believe how closed-minded "true believers" can be -- and how nasty. I don't know how one can claim to be a scientist if one's mind is hermetically sealed to "disfavored" or "prohibited" lines of inquiry.
***Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” ***
I wonder if the Smithsonian has a posting in its personnel office that reads "no discrimination on race, religion, etc." per the government requirement of every other employer.
Some post those things, but don't really mean them.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
First, I am not a chr*stian.
Second, if you believe that simple people who instinctively recoil at evolution or other uniformitarian denials of Biblical events are embarrassments to chr*stianity (since they provide scandal to intellectuals and sophisticates), why don't your churches simply excommunicate all of them? We Noachides will take them gladly, since (unlike you Notzerim) we worship the Biblical G-d.
I don't understand process structuralism. I googled it up and came up with this, "the view that there are deep laws of change that determine some or all of the features of organisms". I can see how this would be ahistorical in the sense that any scientific law would be ahistorical. What his evidence for this is, perhaps someone else can answer.
Personally I don't see why any Catholic would follow these various anti-Darwinians. The Church has repeated over and over that it has no problem with the biological sciences, it only has a problem with those who misuse its findings. It has specifically asked us not to engage in these battles,"we cannot but deplore certain habits of mind, which are sometimes found too among Christians, which do not sufficiently attend to the rightful independence of science and which, from the arguments and controversies they spark, lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed. (7)” (GAUDIUM ET SPES, 36)
Darwinism itself is neutral but for those who can't tear themselves away from a nominalistic worldview, the finding of chance in a string of particular causes is a direct challenge to God. I believe Darwin held that view but evidently so do many anti-Darwinians.
"I am not a chr*stian"
Well then we really have no dispute in science only one in theology and we choose differently. I accept the teaching authority of my church and that authority has looked into the issue of whether the biological sciences are in conflict with scripture and doctrine (recently in the document"Communion and Stewardship:Human Persons Created in the Image of God*"). The say no and I accept that.
You ignored my point. Since you (and your Church) regard simple people who cannot except evolution (or the notion that the Bible is a collection of fables and parables), why don't you just throw them all out? They embarrass you, right?
Were all those illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages evolutionists, or were they Southern Baptists?
I didn't disregard your question. Societal status has nothing to do with whether one accepts a magisterium. The fact is that authority to decide Biblical interpretation is not invested in individuals of whatever rank. Private interpretation of scripture is in conflict with Catholic doctrine.
Okay. So evolution and higher criticism are magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church and every Catholic bumpkin believes in them. Furthermore, anyone who will not accept these things will not be accepted as a convert to the Catholic Church (no wonder you people didn't want my mother--a Southern country girl who grew up during the Depression with only a sixth grade education; your loss).
Will the bishops be denying communion to creationists and literalists? The Catholic Church seems much more embarrassed by them than by abortionist politicians.
IMHO, there should be no ideological presupposition in a scientific investigation Nor should the gatekeepers force ideology on the evaluation of the results. If science would use Bohr's bar for an epistemic cut, we wouldn't be having this never-ending battle concerning intelligent design.
Both practices are also an affront to the First Amendment as xzins suggests - on the one hand establishing a religion - and on the other hand, preventing the free exercise of religion. Based on the current application of Lemon in public venues and the 7th ruling on atheism being religion, the Supreme Court is effectively establishing atheism as the state religion while preventing theism to be spoken in public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.