Pope declares "there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution"!
Category: Creationism • Religion
Posted on: August 3, 2007 8:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Maybe it's news, but at this point all I can say is…who the hell cares what you say, Benny.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search this blog
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
(Complete listing)My parents, though they had never formally left the ancestral Roman Catholic church, held no religious beliefs. Though they were no longer fiercely anti-religious (as I suspect my paternal grandfather was, along with so many of the scientists of his generation), all positive dogma was for them a superstition of the past. They never took me to church. And though as part of my general education I was, soon after I had begun to read for pleasure, given a child's Bible, it disappeared mysteriously when I got too interested in it…. By the age of fifteen, I had convinced myself that nobody could give a reasonable explanation of what he meant by the word 'God' and that it was therefore as meaningless to assert a belief as to assert a disbelief in God. Though this, in a general way, has remained my position ever since, I have always avoided unnecessarily to offend other people holding religious belief by displaying my lack of such belief, or even stating my lack of belief, if I was not challenged.
[From Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue, edited by Stephen Kresge and Leif Wenar (University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. 40-41. F.A. Hayek is considered the foremost defender of capitalism in the 20th century]
Recent Posts
- Nice shirt
- Faith hurts
- There probably isn't
- Enduring damage
- Casey Luskin writes a revealing letter
- Come on down
- The Wall Street Journal editorial pages are a very silly place
- Friday Cephalopod: Out of the shadows it comes
- Turnabout
- Liveblogging Janet Browne
A Taste of Pharyngula
(Complete listing)Acoelomorph flatworms and precambrian evolution
The Cambrian as an evolutionary exemplar
Recent Comments
- Wowbagger on Faith hurts
- Pierce R. Butler on There probably isn't
- Pierce R. Butler on There probably isn't
- SC on Faith hurts
- Naked Bunny with a Whip on Enduring damage
- Wowbagger on Faith hurts
- Pierce R. Butler on Enduring damage
- Owlmirror on Faith hurts
- Longtime Lurker on Enduring damage
- 'This Himself on Enduring damage
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
(Complete listing)Other Information
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Friday Cephalopod: It does look rather evil-overlordish | Main | If you like your puns visual… »
TrackBacks
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
Clever bastard that Pope.
Posted by: Wobert | August 3, 2007 8:08 AM
There is 'much' proof?
It doesn't matter how much or how little proof there is - one tiny bit of proof means we have to acknowledge something as true as a heaping pile of it.
How much proof is there for Roman Christianity, O Pope?
Posted by: Caledonian | August 3, 2007 8:11 AM
B16, aka Benny, :) got his Maddog the Bishop of Augsburg in Germany. He has declared, a few days ago that not teaching the genesis such as the Evolution theory at the schools, is a fact of »totalitarism«.
Posted by: nickpol | August 3, 2007 8:11 AM
Second thoughts, I take that back.He's a total fuckwit
Posted by: Wobert | August 3, 2007 8:12 AM
News just in: Pope declares that science works (whilst simultaneously lying out his arse by intimating that the 1st law of thermodynamics is bunk thus allowing a unmeasured, unknown, unknowable, totally imagined middle eastern sky fairy to influences matter and energy in the known world.) Fucking liar. PZ have at 'im.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 8:13 AM
According to the newspaper article....
"His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design."
I didn't get that, to me it seemed to be an endorsement of theistic evolution, akin to Miller or Collins views, maybe I'm missing some of his remarks that were explicitly pro intelligent design.
The point about evolution not answering where we came from (I presume he means the bing bang theory rather then abiogenesis) is technically true but irrelevant since it doesn't attempt to answer a question that is probably firmly within the scope of physics rather than biology or biochemistry.
Posted by: MartinC | August 3, 2007 8:20 AM
Why, why, why, do they think that if science can't explain it, god did it?
Posted by: Obeah | August 3, 2007 8:26 AM
So is masturbation. But due to the Blood of Christ, any sin can be forgiven. So, how many 'Hail Mary's do you think it takes to atone for destroying the planet?
Posted by: Caledonian | August 3, 2007 8:29 AM
Caledonian: "So, how many 'Hail Mary's do you think it takes to atone for destroying the planet?"
Probably more than it takes to atone for buggering an altar boy. That seems to be a fringe benefit....
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 8:36 AM
In other news...
Earlier today, speaking from his personal residence in the United States, DaveX declared that grilled cheese sandwiches are a "pretty good" lunch.
DaveX also said it is his intention to eat "at least one" grilled cheese sandwich today.
It is unclear at this time if DaveX will choose Coca-Cola to wash his sandwich down, though unnamed sources indicate this is likely.
Posted by: DaveX | August 3, 2007 8:36 AM
Further breaking news: Pope declares DaveX god. Eating a cheese sandwich is partaking of his body and drinking Coca-Cola is drinking his blood. Transubstantiation accepted practice.....
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 8:46 AM
It must feel so good, so... "moral" to do nothing but bitch about religion. Really makes you feel like your standing up for "truth" I bet. After all, you are uncompromising. Who cares if the pope's support of evolution might lead to Catholics accepting evolution. As long as people don't believe, and act, exactly like you do in regards to science, they are the enemy. Classic fundie behavior. Oh, sure, you can differ all you want in regards to what symbol your movement has. Even the worst fundie churches allow differences in the inconsequentials. You can differ in which particular militant atheist you follow. Fundies differ in that too.
Fundie vs. Fundie.
If it wasn't so sad... it would be funny. Heck, even if it is sad, it's still a little funny.
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 8:49 AM
Tiresome morons like David, who think we should get on our knees and humbly beg delusional people to "accept" just a little dose of rationality, make me call to mind Thomas Carlyle's famous dismissal of Margaret Fuller's fatuous declaration, "I accept the universe!": "Gad, she'd better!"
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 3, 2007 8:54 AM
David: "It must feel so good, so... "moral" to do nothing but bitch about religion. Really makes you feel like your standing up for "truth" I bet. After all, you are uncompromising. Who cares if the pope's support of evolution might lead to Catholics accepting evolution."
A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. Thusly a lie by any other name would still be an abomination. But you're so sure of you moderation that you couldn't possibly be in error.
Remember, just because there are 2 sides, doesn't mean one side can't be completely in error. I'll be honest and take the side that has evidence. Not the fundie side that says 3 people can be one person as the pope affirms.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 8:57 AM
"Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive"
Damn hippies!
Although this wouldn't be the first time his church has embraced animism...
Posted by: windy | August 3, 2007 8:57 AM
Brian - Probably more than it takes to atone for buggering an altar boy. That seems to be a fringe benefit....
It's a nice day and Father Benny wants to go golfing, but it's his turn in the confessional. He sees Tom, the janitor cleaning the church and ask if he can handle the confessions.
"It's easy," he says. "Two Hail Mary's for a curse word, One Our Father for anything minor. If you have any questions, just ask Billy the alter boy."
Reluctantly the Tom agrees. Things are going fine until a young woman steps into the confessional and informs the janitor that she gave her boyfriend blow job.
Tom leans out of the confessional and says, "Psst, Billy, what does Father Benny give for a blow job?"
"Sometimes a Snicker bar, sometimes just a pat on the head."
Posted by: No One of Consequence | August 3, 2007 8:58 AM
When I heard it it was: "2 mars bars and a ride in the parish car"....
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 9:02 AM
PZ, there's something I wonder about. The Secret is still a big hit, still popular. Still number 1 on the NYTimes best seller list. I would think that for all your screeds about the "truth", and all that, you would have posts about the Secret as well.
That, and some posts about evolution. Since you are just SO concerned about science education. You post a few, but most seem to be your traditional "I'm PZ. I'm teh atheist. Atheists smart. Look at religious person. Religious people dumb. Hahahahaha".
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 9:02 AM
What's the punch line?
...but scientific evidence is for suckers?
Pope declares his farts are also god's farts, because the Rat is god's representative on earth.
Pfffffffrrrrrt!
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 3, 2007 9:03 AM
David, most Catholics where I come from believe in theistic evolution. The problem was that some time ago this pope, which I remind you a lot of catholics are pretty uneasy with, made some comments dissing ToE. That pissed off a lot of congregations (and a bunch of my family members too). This statement is nothing more than another PR attempt from the pope, and the guy is not as good at it as the previous one.
Posted by: Brigit | August 3, 2007 9:04 AM
Steve, if your goal is for people to accept "rationality" then I would think you would welcome any furtherance of that goal. All your little screed goes to show is that you aren't really looking for people to be rational, you just want to be against relgion. Which is not surprising. Fundies always define themselves by what they are against.
Not the fundie side that says 3 people can be one person as the pope affirms.
Ah, virulent ignorance + hatred. A wonderful combination. Why bother actually learning about the Trinity when you can just attack a strawman?
Now, let me guess. You've actually read the Bible "lots of times", right? You could "school me", right? That's been tried on this forum before. But reality has no place on atheistblogs.com.
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 9:09 AM
David, can you explain and offer evidence to how something without energy or matter can influence something with energy and matter. In other words, how a god can influence a human or this world? Because if you can, I'll happily adopt your hypothesis. If you can't can you please stop helping the liars like the pope. Stop complaining and offer evidence or accept that it's dishonest to respect faith.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 9:10 AM
About a billion people do, in terms of having given their allegiance to the organization that Benedict reigns over. That's quite a bit of influence, for good or ill. We know about plenty of ill and this blog is frequented mostly by people who have recovered from childhood religions. At the same time, though, any "good" statement by the pope (such as "there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution") is an occasion for some mild satisfaction because it denies the anti-science fundies a weighty influence on their side. Ken Ham and other creationists will fulminate against Benedict's remarks and gibber about Genesis, but he and his ilk won't be able to count on Catholic support for their anti-science position. That pleases me.
It's not even half a loaf, of course, because the pope is one of those religious guys. That means his support for evolution is tempered into some kind of theistic evolution that to my eyes often looks like ID. Nevertheless, you can chalk up a tentative point for the side of the good guys. And that's way better than if the pope had come out strongly in favor of a literal six-day creation and added Catholics to the pressure groups lobbying school boards for creation nonsense.
Posted by: Zeno | August 3, 2007 9:10 AM
We don't want them to accept "rationality", we want them to accept rationality.
Rationality requires being against religion.
Actually, Fundamentalism is defined in terms of the most basic aspects of the Christian faith, including a concern with a simple interpretation of the scriptural texts. It doesn't define itself in terms of what it's against.
Posted by: Caledonian | August 3, 2007 9:11 AM
This statement is nothing more than another PR attempt from the pope, and the guy is not as good at it as the previous one.
Yes, of course. Its a "PR attempt". You know this... why? Evidence... why? Come on! People here don't believe things that are without evidence! That's the cardinal tenent of atheism.. I mean rationality!
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 9:12 AM
As a former altar boy, my reaction to the unspeakably vile, scurrilous, derogatory joke in post number 16 was...
...hot coffee exhaled rapidly through the nostrils. I though I'd heard them all, but that's a keeper. ROFL!
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | August 3, 2007 9:12 AM
"Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive"
Does it sound the same as when he talks to god?
God: Hello, Rat. How's it hanging?
Earth: shwshwshwhshwshwhshwshwhshwhshwshw. [translation: good riddance]
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 3, 2007 9:12 AM
"Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'"- Benedict
It came from a mousetrap. Behe told me so.
Posted by: John Danley | August 3, 2007 9:13 AM
Ah, the classic "Why isn't this post about topic X discussing topic Y, which is far more important to me?!!" Except in this case, it's "Why is this post about topic X talking about topic X? Talking about topic X is mean and hurts my feelings and go shut up and get back in your closet!!@#!"
Posted by: stogoe | August 3, 2007 9:13 AM
David, I get my definition of the trinity from the catholic encyclopedia. Here it is , if you don't like it, tell the pope: "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another."
So, 1 (the godhead) is 3 persons which are distinct from each other. So don't lie and tell me that the pope doesn't say 3 people are 1 you silly person. It's a logical fallacy and to believe it is to be a liar.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 9:15 AM
Yes.. of course stogoe. That's exactly what I've been saying. After all, there's just so much evidence that I want you to get back in your "closet". (I like the comparison to the homosexual movement. Makes you seem like real victims). Of course...
You know, for people who only believe things with evidence, you sure are willing to believe a lot of crap. But hypocrisy has been, and always will be a hallmark of fundie behavior.
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 9:17 AM
And if Benedict had said there was no evidence for evolution, that good Catholics should reject it, and that Catholic schools and universities would no longer teach it you still wouldn't have cared what he said?
Admit it, you do care. You just couldn't think of anything good to write about it. In fact, I'd say this isn't news (it represents no discernible change as far as I can see), but is worth caring about.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 3, 2007 9:20 AM
So don't lie and tell me that the pope doesn't say 3 people are 1 you silly person.
Well let's see if your definition really says what you want it to say.
The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another
Funny... it doesn't say that! For some who's so concerned with the "truth" I would think you would practice good reading comprehension. Reading into the definition that the Godhead is a person like the Holy Spirit, Father and Son are is hardly being truthful. It does allow you to laugh at religion though, and since that's what you want to do anyway, you don't need to... think.
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 9:20 AM
Very late indeed
Posted by: quantum | August 3, 2007 9:26 AM
David: read the link.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
Stop lying it does say what I posted. It's a logical fallacy.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 9:28 AM
Not even Catholics truly care. He's like the Queen of England.. people listen but ultimately believe what they want. After all, doesn't Catholicism claim to be the most popular religion in the United States? And yet over 50% of America's population believes in creationism?
The Pope gives himself way too much credit.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 3, 2007 9:28 AM
So according to you Unity doesn't mean 1. So the godhead isn't 1. It's 3. Therefore there are 3 gods and it's polytheism.
Make your mind up, it's either monotheism and 3 distinct persons are 1 god (a logical fallacy) or it's polytheism.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 9:29 AM
Flag on the play: ongoing Blake's Law violation. More after these messages...
Posted by: NC Paul | August 3, 2007 9:31 AM
You guyz is all crazed! Hold on to your Mitres!
This is No Papel Bull, but God-Damned 100% Good-Time Stuff from the point of view that "noted IDest Mike Behe is put in the position of having to oppose the Pope - just one more mistake by an IDiot. It also slaps Dembksi sycophant DaveScot upside the head, and puts paid to his nonsense that the Pope is anti-evo. So, in honor of the REAL best release of the summer, Eat My Shorts Dave.
Posted by: J-Dog | August 3, 2007 9:35 AM
Actually, come to think of it, should this blog have a FAF (Frequently Advanced Fallacies)page to point to when someone trots out hackneyed old trollfodder like "Atheists are fundies too"?
Posted by: NC Paul | August 3, 2007 9:36 AM
How much does he get paid to say this crap?
"Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive."
Coming from someone who has failed miserably to decipher that there is no magic sky deity controlling our destiny... this is beyond laughable!
Push people into a permanent state of infantile ignorance by spouting nonsense at them non-stop for centuries and then you expect them to wake up and think about the planet - all the while continuing to swallow your steaming piles of bullshit?!
What, your god isn't going to make it all better?
What an incredible fuckhead.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 3, 2007 9:38 AM
If any Catholics are reading, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome them to the 19th century.
Posted by: MartinM | August 3, 2007 9:46 AM
I care even less about what "David" has to say than I care about what the Pope has to say.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | August 3, 2007 9:53 AM
>I'm teh atheist. Atheists smart. Look at religious
>person. Religious people dumb. Hahahahaha".
Hahaahahaaaa!! That's pretty good!! You nailed it!! Religious people dumb!!!!
So, uh, which are you?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 3, 2007 9:53 AM
Brian, it's not my job to teach you about the trinity. If you want to remain ignorant, that is not my problem. If you want to read something into the definition that isn't there... well you are the one who's standing up for "truth". I suppose you gotta do what you gotta do.
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 9:54 AM
I'm just reading the definition David. You aren't. It says the god head is the unity of 3 distinct persons. 1 can't be 3. That's where it ends.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 9:57 AM
Reginald, that does not surprise me whatsoever, as you only care about yourself.
Now, let's wait for the inevitable response. Shall it be more insults? Or will Reginald try to claim that he really does care about other people?
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 9:57 AM
You are a liar if you say unity means trinity (1 means 3) and trinity means unity (3 means 1). It's so simple, only a person who was practiced at lying to themselves would say it doesn't mean that.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 9:58 AM
I'm just reading the definition David. You aren't. It says the god head is the unity of 3 distinct persons.
Yes, it does say that. You go from that to, "The Godhead is another person, just like the Holy Spirit, Father and Son". This is not in the definition. It's not my fault that you read stuff into the definition. You can just join the rest of the atheists with poor reading comprehension.
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 9:59 AM
Ask the Sidebar Search, and ye shall receive.
Posted by: windy | August 3, 2007 9:59 AM
All I've said is that according to the definition the godhead is the same person as the 3 distinct persons. I've never said the godhead was different. My only point was that 1 cannot be 3. That is the definition is self-contradictory. It's quite simple something cannot both be and be. Thus god cannot both be the godhead and 3 distinct persons. He's either 1 or 3.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 10:03 AM
Nice to check in for a good laugh. Let's just focus on this one comment:
If MartinM is reading, I'd like to take this opportunity to inform him that Catholic-run schools have a long-standing reputation as providing rigorous and excellent education, including in-depth education in the theory of evolution. This is in contrast to untold numbers of public schools, where kids who can barely read are routinely promoted.
Of course, the whole "religion necessarily and historically is against science" paradigm is utter bullshit. But, oh well! Don't let the facts get in your way. Carry on, sirs! Let a thousand weeds grow.
Posted by: davidm | August 3, 2007 10:04 AM
I meant: It's quite simple something cannot both be and not be. You can't be god and father, son and holy spirit in the one being. It's a contradiction. Simple logic.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 10:05 AM
David: Fundie vs. Fundie
I call Blake's Law on David. Game over. Off to the killfile Weeeeeeeeee!
Posted by: AlanWCan | August 3, 2007 10:07 AM
Davidm: "Of course, the whole "religion necessarily and historically is against science" paradigm is utter bullshit. "
I went to a catholic schools, and to their credit the science wasn't bad. To their discredit when anything scientific was mentioned that showed that the god explanation was contradicted by evidence it was a "mystery". No mystery, if something doesn't have matter or energy, it doesn't influence this universe. Thus if god doesn't have mass or energy, you can't say he influences this universe, let alone exists......
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 10:08 AM
Dante (b. 1265) loved the number three.
Went on and on about it. He saw threes and multiples of threes everywhere. He organized the Commedia around the number three.
I wonder if he had Asperger's?
Maybe we should blame this whole trinity thing on Asperger's disorder.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 3, 2007 10:09 AM
My only point was that 1 cannot be 3.
In that, you are wrong. 1 of one thing, can be 3 of something else. There is no contradiction in that. Now, you can be personally incredulous as much as you want. You have the right to trust your feelings over your reason.
windy,
One post. That was basically PZ ripping something from another article. Obviously, that's all that's necessary... right? 99% of his posts are about his hatred of religion, but apparently he's fine enough with the secret that he only needs to make one post.
davidm,
Great... now people will accuse me of posting under two names.
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 10:10 AM
I know. It's not just the Catholics, either. Even some evangelical Protestant colleges do a fine job of teaching evolution. Point?
Posted by: MartinM | August 3, 2007 10:11 AM
David: "In that, you are wrong. 1 of one thing, can be 3 of something else. " When please, remember the trinity is indivisible. It's not like 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom forming water. Because Hydrogen and water don't have the property of wetness. Whereas god is always god, and simultaneously the father, son, and ghost. That is a contradiction.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 10:12 AM
You know, I really love Blake's Law and all that rubbish. You make up your own law, and the act like that discredits the whole argument. Why deal with reality when you can just make up a "law" and laugh like its a great joke?
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 10:14 AM
I agree with Zeno (#23) and Oran (#32). I don't care, myself, what the Pope says, but a LOT of people do. And if he came out against evolution, that would be very, very bad news for the teaching of science in the U.S.
So I'm never going to agree with the Pope about everything (about most things). So what? Almost anything he does to tick off the fundamentalist creationists is good news in my book. Since we're a distinct minority in America, the best thing we have going for us (besides the truth) is that the true believers can't agree among themselves.
Although, like Martin (#6), I don't understand this article's statement that "His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design." Either the author doesn't understand what ID is or he didn't report the Pope's remarks accurately. That IS something to rant about.
Otherwise,... well, we sometimes seem to be a bunch of children here. Of course this religious stuff is a bunch of baloney! Duh! But this particular news seems to be very favorable for science education, nonetheless. If Catholic kids can actually learn biology, maybe they'll start seeing that there's no need for an imaginary friend.
Posted by: WCG | August 3, 2007 10:15 AM
Otherwise,... well, we sometimes seem to be a bunch of children here.
There is a reason for that. You are a bunch of children.
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 10:17 AM
"who the hell cares what you say, Benny."
Uhhh...I'm under the impression a lot of people? Saying evolution has a lot of evidence might be old news to us but it's not to everyone else. I know quite a few educated people who let their insane religious ideas infect their brain and don't believe in evolution so I'm quite glad that someone they look up to is telling them there is something to this crazy evolution theory!
Hey, it's not perfect, but it's a better start than him saying believing in evolution is a sin. Change won't happen in a day.
Posted by: apy | August 3, 2007 10:18 AM
We may be children David, but we're not lying by saying 3 is 1 indivisible unity.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 10:21 AM
If Oran et al are right, and what the Pope has said IS important then it shows what a danger religion poses. If people were rational they would take no more notice of what the Pope has to say about scientific matters than they would of what PZ has to say about catholic theology. The fact that it is considered to be helpful by some that the Pope has said there evidence to support the Theory of Evolution tells us that the influence religion has over people is oppressive.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 3, 2007 10:21 AM
Nite all, it's bed time here. Keep lying David. God loves lies in his name.
Posted by: Brian | August 3, 2007 10:26 AM
"You make up your own law, and the act like that discredits the whole argument. Why deal with reality when you can just make up a "law" and laugh like its a great joke?"
No - I believe that's what the religious do.
They make up things like the Trinity for which they have no evidence (go on David, give us your evidence for the existence of the Trinity). They act like their made up dogmas discredit actual scientific evidence. Why should they deal with reality when they can just make up a Godhead and use it as a means to enforce ignorance?
Posted by: NC Paul | August 3, 2007 10:28 AM
You can't be god and father, son and holy spirit in the one being.
Now, now... as the prophet said, there is no problem involved in becoming your own father or mother that a broadminded and well-adjusted family can't cope with. (Of course, the family in question seems to be neither!)
Posted by: windy | August 3, 2007 10:33 AM
"If people were rational they would take no more notice of what the Pope has to say about scientific matters than they would of what PZ has to say about catholic theology. The fact that it is considered to be helpful by some that the Pope has said there evidence to support the Theory of Evolution tells us that the influence religion has over people is oppressive."
I'm not sure I agree with this. We all weight an argument based on some measure of how much we trust and feel comfortable with someone. No matter how smart your mechanic is, most people will not give much thought to his thoughts on quantum theory. PZ has his supporters and it would be dubious to claim that each and every one of them is an independent rational thinker on their own that gives equal weights to all arguments they hear. No, I suspect the more supporters he gets the less independent their thought process is. Is that showing science is oppressive? No, just showing how people work.
Posted by: apy | August 3, 2007 10:35 AM
Guys,
Don't feed the troll. He may say otherwise, but David is not interested in discussing anything. If he was he would have put forth a definition of the Trinity to correct what he sees as mistakes. He has not because he is not interested in that. Classic trolling. Don't feed him please.
Posted by: littlefishies | August 3, 2007 10:36 AM
Well that's two popes in a row that have stated that there's evidence supporting evolution. In another 100 years the Catholic Church might actually state that it's the best theory for the variety of life on Earth.
Posted by: commissarjs | August 3, 2007 10:37 AM
No needs to understand the theory of the trinity to know that's it's complete nonsense.
I was confirmed. It's nonsense. All of it.
Father, son and holy ghost.
As if.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 3, 2007 10:42 AM
Apy,
You miss my point. The Pope is NOT a scientist. His views on the validity of the Theory of Evolution are no more valid than mine, as neither am I a scientist. PZ is a scientist, a biologist in fact and so his views on evolution do matter. What the Pope has to say on evolution SHOULD be irrelevant. That some people think it is not shows that Catholicism has a problem. To paraphrase, it needs to learn to "render unto to Ceaser". Scientists would not think of pronouncing on Catholic dogma, so why the hell does the Pope think he can do the same in science ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 3, 2007 10:42 AM
I type very poorly when I'm hungover;
GOD KILL ME.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 3, 2007 10:44 AM
David, you'd be more convincing if you actually offered some kind of arguments, rather than just insults. By the way, this ex-Catholic was taught that the Trinity is a divine mystery, and thus not amenable to human understanding. You might, for example, look at this source, especially the "The Trinity as a Mystery".
Also note the slippery language in the Nicene Creed, where the belief is in "one God, the Father, the Almighty", but also "one Lord, Jesus Christ", the "Son of God" who is "eternally begotten of the Father" and is "true God from true God" (sounds like He's separate from Dad, and counts as another God), and the Holy Spirit, which is also "the Lord" (I thought there was only one!), and who "proceeds from the Father and the Son". So we've got one God, but a Son (also a God) that was "begotten", and a Holy Spirit (also a Lord) that "proceeds from" the other two.
You are welcome to make sense of that in rational terms. Please show your work.
Posted by: Tulse | August 3, 2007 10:48 AM
I'm a queer and an atheist. I got no problem with this. But I'm sure you were equally supportive of queer folks as you are of atheists. Indeed, if you're busy defending the pope, you're pretty much required to believe that i'm inherently disordered because I'm gay. Fuck off on all accounts.
Posted by: MAJeff | August 3, 2007 10:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k
If you're Catholic you will more certainly be offended.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 3, 2007 10:51 AM
As for the Pope, if his views were important then Catholics wouldn't get divorced, or use birth control and condoms, or in vitro fertilization. As Tom said, most Catholics I know in the US treat him like the English treat the Queen -- a warm and fuzzy symbol that is good to have around, but not really relevant as far as their day-to-day lives are concerned.
Posted by: Tulse | August 3, 2007 10:51 AM
And I'll add, fuck Ratzi the Nazi.
Posted by: MAJeff | August 3, 2007 10:52 AM
If people were rational they would take no more notice of what the Pope has to say about scientific matters than they would of what PZ has to say about catholic theology. The fact that it is considered to be helpful by some that the Pope has said there evidence to support the Theory of Evolution tells us that the influence religion has over people is oppressive.
PZ is smart. He has thought about science and religion in an intelligent manner.
The Pope hasn't.
I regard PZ as more of an authority on Catholic theology than the Pope.
Why?
Becasue PZ has come to the right conclusion: it is bullshit. The Pope slogs on, his whole being invested in making sure people adopt a positive attitude toward his enterprise. He's deeply invested in the con. Anything he says about theology is going to be suspect.
Who's opinion deserves to be listened to and trusted?
PZ's.
End of story.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 3, 2007 10:59 AM
Good job, Your Holiness. Now, let's talk about the primary cause behind the destruction of the foundation of our existence. Is it...overpopulation? How could we fix that?
Posted by: Hypocee | August 3, 2007 10:59 AM
How hard is it to understand that this is the best that can reasonably be expected on the subject from any Pope, and far better than we could reasonably fear? The head of the largest and best-organized religious denomination in the world has told his followers there is no religious problem with evolution. That is one for the good guys. It's not everything we could want, of course, but the complaints amount to: "The Pope is Catholic."
Posted by: CJColucci | August 3, 2007 11:06 AM
Matt,
It seems like you are arguing for 'appeal to authority'. Why should PZ being a scientist affect the validity of his argument? If PZ was a biologist who came out and said that evolution is not true would he have an actual argument because he is a scientist (in this case a really bad one). No, it's the argument that matters. Scientists tend to have the information and training to combat a poor argument but that doesn't mean non-scientists don't.
Posted by: apy | August 3, 2007 11:13 AM
Father, son, and holy spirit! Humperdoo!
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 3, 2007 11:23 AM
Don't feed the troll. He may say otherwise, but David is not interested in discussing anything.
Actually you are right. I'm not interested in discussing religion here. One needs to have a certain amount of intelligence to discuss religion. As this intelligence is lacking here, there's very little point.
Anything he says about theology is going to be suspect.
I like this. Don't trust Pope's, or theologians to talk about theology. Listen only to the scientists talk about theology.
One wonder's then, why I should trust the biologists to talk about biology?
Allow me to rephase your post in another context.
Behe is smart. He has thought about evolution in a fair and unbiased manner.
Militant Atheists like PZ haven't.
I regard Behe as more of an authority on evolution than PZ.
Why?
Becasue Behe has come to the right conclusion: it is bullshit. Behe slogs on, his whole being invested in making sure people adopt a positive attitude toward his enterprise. He's deeply invested in the con. Anything he says about evolution is going to be subject.
Who's opinion deserves to be listened to and trusted?
Now do I believe this rephrase? No. But its the same "argument". Same lack of intelligence.
But I'm sure you were equally supportive of queer folks as you are of atheists.
Actually, I'm more supportive of queers than I am of atheists. I actually think people persecute homosexuals.
Scientists would not think of pronouncing on Catholic dogma
As much as I agree with you on this, it seems like you have been outvoted. PZ seems quite willing to "pronounce" lots of stuff about Catholic dogma, as well as Protestant Dogma... and pretty much any other type of religion.
Posted by: David | August 3, 2007 11:27 AM
Apy,
Do you not think years of study actually matter ? Is becoming an expert is a subject a total waste of time ? Of course not. Expertise and experience matters. The Pope, and the Catholic church in general, have never shown much comprehension of science and I see no reason to suggest that has changed. That idea that the Popes announcement means something is ridiculous. If Catholics want to know about science they should listen to those with knowledge in science. When it comes to Catholic dogma I will freely admit the Pope will have the edge on me. When it comes to evolution I do not look to the Pope for answers, I look to biologists like PZ whilst keeping in mind that although they maybe experts they are not infallible. To my mind the Pope should have simply said that he is not an expert in science and that any Catholics wanting to know about science would be served listening to those who do it.
There are a number of atheists who argue the likes of PZ and Dawkins need to keep quiet about science and religion being incompatible as they see science and religion as being totally seperate. I wonder how many of those atheists will now call on the Pope to shut up ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 3, 2007 11:30 AM
Behe slogs on...
hee hee, I think you meant to say PZ. Good slip.
Posted by: TR | August 3, 2007 11:30 AM
"Scientists would not think of pronouncing on Catholic dogma
As much as I agree with you on this, it seems like you have been outvoted. PZ seems quite willing to "pronounce" lots of stuff about Catholic dogma, as well as Protestant Dogma... and pretty much any other type of religion."
David,
Can you really be that obtuse ?
When PZ talks about religion he is NOT doing so as a scientist. When the Pope talks about science it is very clear he IS doing so as head of the Catholic church. Do you see the difference ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 3, 2007 11:32 AM
David, you'd be more convincing if you actually offered some kind of arguments, rather than just insults.
So would most fundie atheists. However, as their entire argument is "Wah! I don't get it! It's gotta be wrong! I'm teh atheist and I'm smart! Wah!", its not terribly surprising they don't say much.
By the way, this ex-Catholic was taught that the Trinity is a divine mystery, and thus not amenable to human understanding.
Not amenable in any way shape or form? Or just not totally amenable?
They act like their made up dogmas discredit actual scientific evidence.
You have scientific evidence that the trinity is impossible! Really! Please! Enlighten me! What evidence do you have, oh great