reasonyousmile: Good for them.

/Catholicism - last across the line, but at least they cross it, even in their own retarded way.

We really need to consider the practical ramafications about this belatedly announced conversion. Where the HRCC goes, the Church of England and it's American branch, the Episcopalian Church, arn't far behind. Heck, Catholics were fondling altar boys years before the openly gay bishop... But yeah... Once the CoE and EpisCs are admitting it's ok, the Lutherans will swing into line, then the Baptists, then the Methodists will ignite their own chain of break-aways, Southern Baptists next, eventually leading to Westboro Baptist admitting that, yes, they might have had a few inconsistancies in their official teaching. (A statement that would leave me shocked... simply shocked.)

In short, while many years and theological differences seperate the Holy Roman Catholic Church from it's protestant "children", for pratcial purposes, it is merely the trunk of the Christain tree, and the sap is a flowin'.

SkinnyHead: "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity' are not science at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence." ~ Cardinal Christoph Schonborn

Dude, didn't you ever learn?

Never bring a cardinal to a pope fight.

/would also have accepted a poker bidding metaphor
// or a "trumps" metaphor

This is not a surprise to anyone who is actually familiar with Catholicism. The Catholic church is waaaaay more realistic and in touch with science than folks who lump them in with the charismatic movement and fundie christians give them credit for. The Catholics have centuries upon centuries of philosophical work they've done that puts them in a completely different league than your typical Pentacostal or Baptist church.

If I suddenly got bonked on the head and believed in god out of the blue one day, I'd want to go catholic. I'll take catholics over almost any other religion any day of the week.

/still sticking with atheist
//kinda hard to get over the whole god thing when you don't even believe in souls

Overfiend: I am a Christian and have believed in evolution for a long time.

Not picking on you personally, but I also have to take issue with the use of the word "belief" in relation to evolutionary theory.

It's not a belief system. It's not something to be accepted on faith. We not talking about absolute metaphysical truths of the universe here. Biology is a very empirical science, and doesn't make any claims to absolute truth.

Like any scientific theory, you either accept that it's a good working model (until and unless a better one comes along) to explain a particular natural phenomenon, or you don't. Belief doesn't really come into it.

KJM315: pd771: While true in the past, the Catholic Church funds many scientific endeavors.

please check spain after the catholics got there and kicked out/killed the jews and muslims. to quote Iberian historian Henry Kamen, quoting an italian nobleman visiting spain in 1688 - "the ignorance is immense and the sciences are held in horror".

So you're using 16th Century accounts to argue against the modern Church? Are you just ignoring the roles of the Monarchy in Spain? Are you not thinking logically? I think the answer to all three is yes.

miscreant: attackingpencil: Why would evolution imply that God didn't know the result? If God exists outside of time and is omniscient then it doesn't seem like it would be a problem.

If God knew the result, then it's number 3. He knew what would happen, therefore it was pre-determined.

I'd argue that foreknowledge doesn't necessarily imply predestination.

KJM315: please check spain after the catholics got there and kicked out/killed the jews and muslims. to quote Iberian historian Henry Kamen, quoting an italian nobleman visiting spain in 1688 - "the ignorance is immense and the sciences are held in horror".

Not defending the actions of the Church in this case but that was over 300 years ago.

Catholic schools have been teaching evolution for fifty years, anyway.

We have better things to worry about. Like our don't-ask-don't-tell policy on homosexuals!

/doesn't ask, doesn't care.

Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.

This I don't understand. Intelligent Design isn't science, so I wouldn't expect it to be accepted by scientists... but it is religion, and it seems to me to be totally compatible with Catholicism. Why wouldn't the Vatican embrace it?

Watched a Nova story on the Dover School Board that tried to push ID onto the science classes in the district. Didn't catch the whole thing but it was about the lawsuit where the board was sued by people who recognized ID for what it is - religion.

Very interesting show. I generally look at those shows with a cynical eye and wonder what the producers/directors are leaving out that would subvert their storyline, but this one was spot on.

Don't remember how old that episode is but it's well worth watching. If not on the intertubes then pick up a copy at your local library - they usually have those shows on DVD.

mongbiohazard: If I suddenly got bonked on the head and believed in god out of the blue one day, I'd want to go catholic. I'll take catholics over almost any other religion any day of the week.

Yeah, but if you were turning catholic, it wouldn't be your head they were bonking...

Seriously though, I seem to remember prior stories about the Church moving in this directon re: evolution (not re: buttfarking)...even back to the last Pope?

pd771: DaiDreamer5: Wasn't Gregor Mendal a monk?

quiet, you're ruining atheist talking points!

That's not exactly an atheist talking point. The issue of religion matters here are incidental - no priest used his religion to come up with a scientific discovery, they relied on scientific methods.

At any rate atheism doesn't equate with anything other than a lack of belief.

mongbiohazard: This is not a surprise to anyone who is actually familiar with Catholicism. The Catholic church is waaaaay more realistic and in touch with science than folks who lump them in with the charismatic movement and fundie christians give them credit for. The Catholics have centuries upon centuries of philosophical work they've done that puts them in a completely different league than your typical Pentacostal or Baptist church.

If I suddenly got bonked on the head and believed in god out of the blue one day, I'd want to go catholic. I'll take catholics over almost any other religion any day of the week.

/still sticking with atheist
//kinda hard to get over the whole god thing when you don't even believe in souls

Well I agree with you to an extent but in many ways the catholic church is very still in the dark ages about many things. They are ahead in many ways, but everyone is hundreds of years behind, they just happen to be less behind.

Go for a "catholic" non-archdiocese church, they are becoming quite popular because people are sick of how out of touch the Vatican is.

MonkeyAngst: This I don't understand. Intelligent Design isn't science, so I wouldn't expect it to be accepted by scientists... but it is religion, and it seems to me to be totally compatible with Catholicism. Why wouldn't the Vatican embrace it?

There's a difference between ID and theistic evolution. The Catholic Church endorses theistic evolution. As in, Evolution happens as described by science (except that God gave humanity souls) but the process itself was instigated by God.

Catholics are not creationists. The creationists are the hillbilly protestants. Sick of atheists getting that wrong.

/agnostic

attackingpencil: I'd argue that foreknowledge doesn't necessarily imply predestination.

If there is absolute certainty then I would say yes it is predestination.

IXI Jim IXI: Seriously though, I seem to remember prior stories about the Church moving in this directon re: evolution (not re: buttfarking)...even back to the last Pope?

Yeah, they've basically been neutral or pro-evolution since the beginning.

attackingpencil: miscreant: attackingpencil: Why would evolution imply that God didn't know the result? If God exists outside of time and is omniscient then it doesn't seem like it would be a problem.

If God knew the result, then it's number 3. He knew what would happen, therefore it was pre-determined.

I'd argue that foreknowledge doesn't necessarily imply predestination.

Exactly. The argument is that God knows what you will chose, as he has supreme knowledge, but would not force you to chose one way or the other.

tweekster: attackingpencil: I'd argue that foreknowledge doesn't necessarily imply predestination.

If there is absolute certainty then I would say yes it is predestination.

If you went back in time and observed historical events would the people involved not have free will?

Doc Daneeka: I wish people wouldn't refer to it as Darwinism, and would instead refer to it by its proper name, evolutionary biology.

/or dorkinism

//dorkism?

attackingpencil: I'd argue that foreknowledge doesn't necessarily imply predestination.

If God is outside of space/time, then I don't see how foreknowledge can't imply predestination. At the "moment" God decides how the universe will work, he would automatically know the results. It'd be like being able to change the variables in a computer program or something and see the results immediately. With each tweak he would know exactly what the change would entail. How would that NOT be predestination?

The Vatican goes beyond saying Darwinism is compatible with Catholicism, to actually suggesting that they thought of it first.

Simpsons did it!

attackingpencil: KJM315: please check spain after the catholics got there and kicked out/killed the jews and muslims. to quote Iberian historian Henry Kamen, quoting an italian nobleman visiting spain in 1688 - "the ignorance is immense and the sciences are held in horror".

Not defending the actions of the Church in this case but that was over 300 years ago.

I just had it handy. I fully realize today's mainstream Catholics are not the problem with Christianity.

pd771: KJM315: pd771: While true in the past, the Catholic Church funds many scientific endeavors.

please check spain after the catholics got there and kicked out/killed the jews and muslims. to quote Iberian historian Henry Kamen, quoting an italian nobleman visiting spain in 1688 - "the ignorance is immense and the sciences are held in horror".

So you're using 16th Century accounts to argue against the modern Church? Are you just ignoring the roles of the Monarchy in Spain? Are you not thinking logically? I think the answer to all three is yes.

No, just saying they aren't all pro science, and i missed the "While true in the past," part of your post.


/against organized religion of any format.
//have no problem with traditions.

attackingpencil:
If you went back in time and observed historical events would the people involved not have free will?

I always wonder about that. If actions are set in stone, past and future, how can you actually have free will?

MonkeyAngst: This I don't understand. Intelligent Design isn't science, so I wouldn't expect it to be accepted by scientists... but it is religion, and it seems to me to be totally compatible with Catholicism. Why wouldn't the Vatican embrace it?

Maybe because of the company ID tends to keep? I don't think the Vatican would want to be associated with the people at the Discovery Institute.

HeartBurnKid: HowAboutNo: Microevolution = yes
Macroevolution = no

How cute, you think there's a difference.

How cute, you don't know what either word means, nor that there is in fact a difference.

Farkwod: The Vatican goes beyond saying Darwinism is compatible with Catholicism, to actually suggesting that they thought of it first.

Actually if you read Augustine's Literal Interpretation of Genesis the doctrine of seminal reasons is pretty compatible/similar to Evolution. Then again, so is some philosophy of the ancient Greeks.

miscreant: It'd be like being able to change the variables in a computer program or something and see the results immediately. With each tweak he would know exactly what the change would entail. How would that NOT be predestination?

Not to mention a waste of time.

"Ok, I'm going to set up this system. I have complete control of every aspect of the system. I know what will happen every second for eternity. If I change something, I will STILl know what will happen.

I am God. I'm setting up the Cosmos because I live in my mom's basement."

IXI Jim IXI: attackingpencil:
If you went back in time and observed historical events would the people involved not have free will?

I always wonder about that. If actions are set in stone, past and future, how can you actually have free will?

Furthermore, if the progression of time from past --> future is only a function of human perception....

/Feels oppressed

pd771: Exactly. The argument is that God knows what you will chose, as he has supreme knowledge, but would not force you to chose one way or the other.

But if the choices you make are based on circumstances, and God controls the initial setup that determines which circumstances exist at the time you make those choices, then it's still predetermined.

Diogenes: Hardly. In America, at least, it's mostly the Protestants making a fuss over ID. And the last time I checked, they have no love for or loyalty to the Vatican.

Republican Jesus never forgave the Pope for condemning the invasion of Iraq.

miscreant: pd771: Exactly. The argument is that God knows what you will chose, as he has supreme knowledge, but would not force you to chose one way or the other.

But if the choices you make are based on circumstances, and God controls the initial setup that determines which circumstances exist at the time you make those choices, then it's still predetermined.

But under that argument there's no free will anyway. Since if the conditions weren't set by God they were set by the variables set in place at the Big Bang.

Uh, I never thought I'd defend the church, but I haven't met a priest or brother or whatever in my lifetime who flat out denied that evolution in any form could be The Truth. In fact if it weren't for the internet, I might not know that there are people like that in existence.

trappedspirit: Bbbut molested altar boys!!

Molested altar boys are but one step in the evolutionary process to produce humans with exceptionally large anuses.

Diogenes 2009-02-11 10:41:49 AM
Hardly. In America, at least, it's mostly the Protestants making a fuss over ID. And the last time I checked, they have no love for or loyalty to the Vatican.
===========================

Yeah, while Catholics have historically been the ones least resistant to embrace these sort of things... Catholics have all but already endorsed Darwinism anyway.

Maybe it was the persecution of Darwin 150 years ago and feeling sorry about it, I dunno :)

tweekster: attackingpencil: I'd argue that foreknowledge doesn't necessarily imply predestination.

If there is absolute certainty then I would say yes it is predestination.

If you get to know a person really well, then you can predict, with sometimes astounding accuracy, how they will respond to a situation. This doesn't mean that the other person lacks free will, it just means that you know how he/she will choose.

I know, for instance, that when my wife sees a picture of ugly-ass baby bears, she will immediately stop everything she is doing to adore said picture. Happens every time. I know this, but it doesn't mean she doesn't have free will.

/not playing Devil's Advocate
//never seen Devil's Advocate
///rather enjoying Devil May Cry

KJM315: please check spain after the catholics got there and kicked out/killed the jews and muslims. to quote Iberian historian Henry Kamen, quoting an italian nobleman visiting spain in 1688 - "the ignorance is immense and the sciences are held in horror".

You have to go back to the seventeenth century to refute the point? Sheesh. Come on, you can do better than that.

facisto: Didn't John Paul II say this over a decade ago? I remember discussing this with my European History teacher back in high school.

jmsvrsn: And what was the previous official stance of the church. I'm curious because over 30 years ago I was taught by nuns at a Catholic high school that the theory of evolution was accepted as truth.

Thank you. I was scratching my head because, for my lifetime, that's been the Church's position. That's been the stance that both theology and the theories of evolution can and do co-exist, and without conflict. That is one of the best things to come out of V2.

DeerNuts: miak



/link is to hot, as Darwin is to wrong,dead,false? Wait..

I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church puts out statements like these every couple years as a, "HEY GUYS, DON'T LUMP US IN WITH THOSE INTELLIGENT DESIGN MORONS" reminder.

This changes nothing.

The churches that are pushing for ID are already fully in the belief that Catholicism is a cult. This just will serve to reinforce that.

soporific: If you get to know a person really well, then you can predict, with sometimes astounding accuracy, how they will respond to a situation. This doesn't mean that the other person lacks free will, it just means that you know how he/she will choose.

There is a difference between merely guessing and and being all knowing. Plus wouldn't omniscient imply that limitless knowledge including on the grand timeline?

todangst: To my memory the Catholic church has been at least open to evolutionary theory for decades... and of course they are ardent supporters of the big bang theory, seeing as 1) it was a priest who came up with it and 2) it's easy to reconcile with a creator is you assume that there is no eternal megaverse behind the big bang....

That's kind of the nice thing. The Big Bang Theory just states a hypothesis as to what happened, not why or by whom.

Furthermore, nothing says that the idea of a Creation Week is incompatible, either. Nothing in the Bible says that a day in Genesis is the same as our 24 hour day. It could be referring to revolutions of our galaxy, or some other reference. And as for being a creation in His image, what exactly does that mean? Physical traits or a more metaphysical and/or spiritual image? Does God look like a human? That's rather full of us to think as much.

Once you move away from the literal, which is all that a bunch of pre-Christian goat herders could really comprehend, and begin to think about what it really could mean, it gets really deep.

Besides, many Christians I know are insulted by the idea of Intelligent Design. To them, ID is a sign on an imperfect God. Why would He need to guide His creation if it was perfect to begin with?

And things like astrophysics and elemental physics have too many parts that show that a Young Earth just isn't true. Unless, of course, the Devil has taken to warp them, too.

attackingpencil: But under that argument there's no free will anyway. Since if the conditions weren't set by God they were set by the variables set in place at the Big Bang.

I think that's where things diverge in my mind. If I believe that God or the Big Bang created the universe then -assuming the practical impossibility of time travel - free will exists. The starting parameters were set, but after that, things fall as they may or may not.

I know that there's the idea that a grand unified theory could eventually lead us to a point where we could predict every particle's motion, past and future, but I'm not so sure I believe that.