Monday, November 3, 2014

Tagged under: ,

Intelligent Deception Gets Vatican Raspberry

For the few not already aware of it factual status, The Independent reported last week that Pope Francis has stated that evolution is a fact, and in the words of the paper ‘put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design ...’

It is the sort of news that is not really new. Many Christians have long come to the conclusion that evolution was an easily verifiable fact so there is nothing all that novel about Pope Francis’s announcement. The Catholic Truth Society has even put out a booklet on the matter, Darwin and Evolution. John Paul 2 almost twenty years ago prolaimed 'evolution as more than an hypothesis.' It was only common sense therefore that a writer on the Teilhard de Chardin webpage would state that 'the remarks made by Pope Francis were consistent with statements made by his predecessors and Catholic theologians.'

Old style creationism in its young earth form has long been dismissed as bunkum. The more modern Intelligent Design was not a "science" of evolution underpinned by a supreme being, as suggested in The Independent, but was unremittingly hostile to evolution. Intelligent Design was better understood as Intelligent Deception that sought to overcome some of the more blatant flaws in creationism while maintaining its fundamental principle of special creation and no evolution: we arrived on earth as the full package, Adam and Eve-like, with no history of life prior to the abracadabra moment of creation.

But ID too was exposed as rubbish and judicially viewed as such during the Dover Trial, where one of its advocates Michael Behe conceded it was science on a par with astrology.  The judge in the case expressed bemusement at the extent to which the ID lobby lied in order to dress up its case and bunk into school classrooms as religion masquerading as science, ‘just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel’ as put by one of its chief proponents, William Dembski, in 1999.

Evolution is not in essence anti-religious, although it is probably not too far wrong to claim that all atheists are evolutionists but not all evolutionists are atheists. Many Christians have long understood the strength's of science's claims. They simply do not subscribe to a godless evolution and many find unpalatable Darwinian natural selection as the driving force behind it. Opposition to Darwinian natural selection is not confined to religion: within an evolutionary biology that places nature not god as the dynamic there are some disagreements over what drives nature.

None of is likely to matter to the anti-science lobby who will continue to promote magic. The Caleb Foundation in the North shall carry on persisting with a timeline that in real terms has the world created after the Giants Causeway had been formed. That’s what gets into government in the North unfortunately. 

Despite the sheer volume of evidence, real measurements will continue to be challenged by religious measurements. The magic men will deny the evidence in front of their eyes and believe in some cultic myth like the world being created 6000 years ago, which is sort of on a par with the assertion that that Derry and Belfast are three centimeters apart. No reason for denying them the right to believe whatever they want; even the court can’t force a belief on them no matter how sensible. It is a person’s right to believe the moon is made of cheese or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.

The right to hold that view should never extend as far as allowing it to be inflicted on others. It is when the demand is made for magic and myths to be taught in schools as an alternative theory to hard science that it becomes a problem. The US education system has been prone to attacks on science and logic in this form under the guise of "teach the controversy." What controversy? Discussing astrology as an alternative theory to Astronomy is fine for a pub, not a centre of learning.

That's a thought: teach evolution in schools and Intelligent Design in pubs, just not my local.

16 comments :

marty said...

Wish to fuck I could run into all those re teachers from my past I,d shove an apple where our Gerry Itwasntme likes to see the light ..

Wolfsbane said...

The problem still remains, so there is no point wiggling to accommodate current scientific theory - unless it is to deceive the unwary.

I mean, the scientific establishment view has no room for one couple as the sole ancestors for all mankind, but the RCC is bound to that as an infallible teaching:

'In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).'
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Wolfsbane said...

BTW, I hold to a Young Earth Creation. Primarily because that is taught by the Bible; secondarily because I see the scientific arguments for evolution are not indisputable.

So much of the case for a deep-time origin of life is based on assumptions rather than observed facts. Honest people should see that, even if they believe time will prove life-from-nonlife to be a fact.

frankie said...


I'm still siding on Alien intervention.. Basically someone tweaked a few genes from a chimp or other primate...And presto..



marty said...

Frankie bestiality is illegal but hey that didnt stop Dennis fucking Maggie....

Tain Bo said...

Frankie,

tweaking the genes sounds good but the earliest known genetic ancestor to humans is about 66 million years old a small furry rodent like creature with a mammal Placenta. I would think the genes have been tweaking themselves and will continue.

On the other hand man tweaking the genes is already on the cards.

Peter said...

Wolfsbane

"..secondarily because I see the scientific arguments for evolution are not indisputable"

You miss the point entirely. Nothing in science is indisputable. Scientists only claim to have the best answer given the available data. Once new data is discovered the previous scientific claims are reexamined. You claim you hold for a young earth eventhough the montains of available data would indicate that the earth is much older.

You claim "... the case for a deep-time origin of life is based on assumptions rather than observed facts". Positivists would claim that they have been observing the formation of sedimentary rock and the cutting of river valleys for long enough to know these processes take much longer than 6,000 years. Your claim does nothing for your faith or your particular strain of religion as believing bronze age zealots over modern science is utterly stupid in the eyes of rational people.

Wolfsbane said...

Peter said:
'"..secondarily because I see the scientific arguments for evolution are not indisputable"
You miss the point entirely. Nothing in science is indisputable. Scientists only claim to have the best answer given the available data. Once new data is discovered the previous scientific claims are reexamined. You claim you hold for a young earth eventhough the montains of available data would indicate that the earth is much older.'

I meant that many - even scientists - make the claim that evolution has been proved, that is is beyond questioning. Had they said it was supported by masses of evidence, that would have been a different matter. The evidences are the same for both theories, it's the interpretations that differ - and both sides have problems fitting various evidences into their theories.

It is the insistence that there is no scientific case against evolution that is the ideological dishonesty.

'You claim "... the case for a deep-time origin of life is based on assumptions rather than observed facts". Positivists would claim that they have been observing the formation of sedimentary rock and the cutting of river valleys for long enough to know these processes take much longer than 6,000 years.'

They made assumptions that the rates of deposition and erosion are uniform to get their dates - but we see many examples of catastrophic formation of sediments.

Catastrophist explanations are no longer confined to Creationism - it is just the degree and extent to which catastrophism is responsible for our geology that is disputed.

'Your claim does nothing for your faith or your particular strain of religion as believing bronze age zealots over modern science is utterly stupid in the eyes of rational people.'

Rational people should not be so trusting in the experts. A closer look at their assured conclusions often shows prejudice, disagreement and place-seeking driving their positions, not science. And their unwillingness to engage with the scientific arguments posed by their colleagues who argue for Creation or ID is proof of their intolerance of non-establishment ideas.

A little scepticism toward our elites would be a good thing.

Wolfsbane said...

frankie said:
'I'm still siding on Alien intervention.. Basically someone tweaked a few genes from a chimp or other primate...And presto..'

Hmm - that's 1 ID, and 1 Creationist so far on the thread. The rest believe life came from non-life, and gained in complexity until we have the magnificent biosphere we see today.

Or has someone another view?

Wolfsbane said...

Very powerful reminder of the power of ideas!

Darwinism (the biological theory) gave rational grounds for Social Darwinism. If Nature, not God, is the explanation of all, including mankind, then competition and extermination are at least as reasonable as compassion and acceptance.
The elite of past generations acted on that - and there's no reason they won't do so again.

Scientific Racism The Eugenics of Social Darwinism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FmEjDaWqA4&feature=share

marty said...

A Poleglass woman has given birth to piglets,,,the child support agency are now looking for the swine responsible

frankie said...

Off topic but...


A teacher asks her class "Can anyone tell me the name of Robin Hood's girlfriend?"Little Paddy raises his hand and says "Yes Miss, it's Trudy Glen.""No Paddy, the answer is Maid Marion.""But Miss, what about the song? Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding Trudy Glen."

(read on FB a min ago)...

frankie said...

Tain,
tweaking the genes sounds good but the earliest known genetic ancestor to humans is about 66 million years old a small furry rodent like creature with a mammal Placenta.

One of the earliest know mamals is 66 million odd yrs old.. Not humans. People have been looking for the missing link and they'll find it because it doesn't exist.
I'm convinced the various types of 'humaniod' what ever they've found were nothing else than experiments and someone tweaked it until they came up with Humans in our present form..

I also believe in paraellel universes...

@Marty (or anyone) if you ever go to Colombia and someone say's " fancy a donkey ride" Say "No"....


EU: ban bestiality

ABOUT THIS PETITION:

Bestiality is a worldwide occurrence and Europe is not free from it.

In some countries members of the European Union raping an animal carries no punishment, and in Denmark it is even perfectly legal to run animal brothels. Although the legality of bestiality has been questioned on a number of occasions, a Danish parliament majority believes that it is not necessary to ban sex with animals. The fact that defenseless animals can be legally raped in Denmark in a thriving business where their owners profit from inflicting pain, stress, fear and even death on animals, is a disgrace to the entire country, to say the least.

Bestiality is legal in Denmark, Finland, Hungary, and Sweden where it was formerly illegal, but made legal in 1994. In West Germany, the law making it a crime (§175b StGB) was removed in 1969. East Germany, before reunification, had no law against bestiality; zoophilia pornography, however, was very restricted. Certain barriers are set by the Animal Protection Law (Tierschutzgesetz). On 13 December, 2012, the Bundestag passed a tough new law against bestiality, which includes fines of up to 25,000 euros. The law, which is expected to be confirmed in February, is part of a trend that moves beyond Biblically rooted strictures against the “abomination” of the act to focus instead on the perceived damage to the animal.

In some countries, sex with animals is legal as long as long as no physical harm is made to the animal, but it is in the nature of the case that animals are often victims of injury, stress and suffering in connection with sexual acts with humans.

frankie said...

Wolfsbane you've been reading the bible wrong

Tain Bo said...

Frankie,

I am just following the path and who is to say that the ETs didn’t tweak the genes of earlier mammals? Not that I believe they have been tweaked I prefer the simple answer that the planet just happened to contain the right ingredients and single cell life began a journey of splitting and forming new more complicated life.

Humans are mammals so the link is valid in my book which doesn’t count for much I believe we came out of the soup like all other living things long before we decided to walk upright.

Not to forget the all important core of the earth that creates the magnetic field around the rock otherwise the sun would just fry it. If I start believing in ET then Jesus was one or is on the books as one.

That electromagnetic field could have helped in boiling the primordial soup.

marty said...

Frankie what has 200 balls and fucks ducks ?...
A12 bore shotgun ..