…and this is a 
Science is not your merkin
Category: Religion
Posted on: September 17, 2008 9:06 AM, by PZ Myers
The Vatican has announced that they are having an evolution congress, and that no creationists or intelligent design creationists will be invited. Isn't that sweet? They're still inviting a swarm of theologians, though, so their exclusion is all window-dressing, a transparent attempt to sidle medieval peddlers of superstitious nonsense up next to some serious science for a photo op and a little propaganda. And they aren't even trying to hide what they're doing.
Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.
Right. Strictly scientific. With theology.
He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design.
What an out — they're only going to allow arguments critically defined as scientific, oh, and theology. Those are two different things, you know.
I eagerly await the announcement of the associated banquet for the participants. They will only be serving the highest quality food, made by master chefs of Europe, using only the freshest, best ingredients, oh, and there will be dollops of runny, rancid fecal material splattered over the tables and dishes. But the meal will be a magnificent gourmet experience, and the world will know that Vatican shit deserves to be served to the greatest minds of science.
I'm sure they'll get some good smart people to go along with this, because there is no shortage of competent scientists willing to compromise the public face of science by associating it with wishful thinking and the supernatural. And the Vatican will, of course, throw buckets of pomp and money and somber news quotes at this, all to decorate the rotting flesh of their decrepit dogma with the jewels of science.
And look! Their exclusivity runs the other way, too!
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate — proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection — also were not invited.
"Overly scientific conception of evolution"? What the heck? So the problem with evolution, to these Catholics, is that there's too darned much science in it? I guess Richard Dawkins won't be pining by his mailbox, hangdog with disappointment that his papal invitation hasn't arrived yet. Why, the whole problem with evolutionary biology is that we don't have enough religion in it, to poison and distort and attenuate the science. But not just any religion: it seriously needs more Catholicism.
Phillip Sloan, a professor at Notre Dame, told the press conference the evolution debate, "especially in the United States, has been taking place without a strong Catholic presence ... and the discourse has suffered accordingly."
My usual position is that we need a diversity of approaches to getting science across to the people, and I'll normally hold my nose and say that those who want to accommodate their religious beliefs to evolution and reach out to people of faith are a necessary part of the process, and that they should be encouraged (but always, also, criticized!). I cannot say that of this conference. Scientists who willingly participate in this obvious game of propaganda are not helping science at all — they are simply selling sectarian Catholic dogma by adding a false luster of rationalism to a body of rank nonsense. The Vatican is asking for a façade of superficially presented science and an illusion of selectivity to make their lies and fantasies look specially favored by the scientific community … and they have even admitted that scientists who reject their teleology and their doctrines and their lunatic beliefs will not be permitted to question.
The conference is a lie. It's an attempt to pad religion's résumé. It will get only a sneer of contempt from me, but watch: some scientists and the media and the public, all the people who really, really want transubstantiating triune gods and inherited sins that damn all to hell to be true will lap it up. The Catholic Church will frame it masterfully to serve their corrupt and dishonest ends.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 17, 2008 9:13 AM
Gets my vote for top 5 post titles ever.
Posted by: wazza | September 17, 2008 9:16 AM
Someone was asking (I think over at Evolving Thoughts) what we think we're doing shouting at people that they're idiots for following religion...
and then the Vatican shuts out some evolutionary theorists for being too scientific.
So what is it we're supposed to say instead?
Posted by: David Lee | September 17, 2008 9:17 AM
Here! Here!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 17, 2008 9:18 AM
No thanks doc, you've got too much experience and eduction to perform my heart operation.
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 17, 2008 9:20 AM
"Too scientific" is something really special. If he'd have talked about "too reductive" or "too mechanistic" he'd have still been talking nonsense but at least it would have been nonsensical in a more subtle way.
Presumably they will soon be announcing that that line was a bone-headed joke added to the speech by a junior priest and that Archbishop Ravasi invented the Blackberry.
Posted by: Gene | September 17, 2008 9:20 AM
"...there will be dollops of runny, rancid fecal material splattered over the tables and dishes."
The Catholics serve up only the best for science.
What's for dessert?
Posted by: Sigmund | September 17, 2008 9:21 AM
I wouldn't write off all chances that this conference can be useful. It does provide an opportunity for pro-evolutionary Catholics like Kenneth Brown to push the Catholic church into taking a more outspoken position on the question rather than flirting with the ID crowd as Cardinal Schonberg seemed to be doing in recent years.
As for the reason or the conference in the first place would suspect more cynical motives - such as competing with the evolution hatin' evangelicals who have lately taken to poaching the popes flock.
Posted by: Richard Harris | September 17, 2008 9:21 AM
Fuck the Pope, and all other liers for Jebus.
Posted by: nobody | September 17, 2008 9:24 AM
Little Paul, the prophet who Knows All, including everything within The Realm Of Science, also claims that He Knows All Within The Realm of Religion.
Hypocrite. You simply loathe the Church for its justifiable distaste of your abusive personality, so this is how you strike back.
On second thought, this isn't hypocrisy.
This is a third-grade bully mentality.
As for this:
Here! Here!
It's "Hear hear", you dolt.
Posted by: Zeno | September 17, 2008 9:26 AM
Religion always resents being found unnecessary.
I have a modicum of sympathy for those defenders of religion who decry the argument that evolution and natural selection disprove God and faith. No, they merely show him to be irrelevant and unnecessary. (Then it's Occam's razor that disposes of him as an excess hypothesis.) But this Catholic conference on evolution is just trying to wedge religion into science's world in order to give life "meaning." It's their last hope of salvaging something out of the wreckage of their God-centered philosophy -- a form of unemployment insurance for a remaindered deity.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 17, 2008 9:27 AM
Nobody you really are a one trick pony. And that trick sucks.
I'm not sure I've seen you make an argument let alone a cohesive one yet.
Posted by: ennui | September 17, 2008 9:28 AM
do you mean Kenneth Miller, at Brown University?
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 17, 2008 9:29 AM
For some reason reading this post I flashed on Don Novello, better known to fans of SNL as Father Guido Sarducci. The comedian was arrested by Vatican Police in 1981 for walking around the Vatican in costume blessing everyone he came upon. It seems you're supposed to have some credentials to do that. They charged him with impersonating a priest.
I think you all know where I'm going with this.
We need science cops to raid the joint. Hmmm... but what would be the charges? Suggestions?
Posted by: Sigmund | September 17, 2008 9:30 AM
"do you mean Kenneth Miller, at Brown University?"
Doh!
Posted by: Ploon | September 17, 2008 9:34 AM
Wow, they're not even trying to hide their intellectual dishonesty. They want to preach to the choir, as always, and want to be the only ones doing so. It's obvious that they're not out for a vigorous debate (don't want that in an authoritarian institution, now do we?) of evolution on its scientific merits. The outcome will doubtless be something wishy-washy and watered-down version of god-guided evolution that may be palatable to the great Catholic unwashed but will convince no one else. And meanwhile they get to say "See, see how enlightened we are?". Ugh.
As I like to say, Catholics are just as crazy as other Christian sects except in addition they like their leaders to wear funny hats. Things like this make me want to knock those hats off, shake them by the shoulders and shout "Join the fracking 21st century, you pillock!" until they cry.
Posted by: God | September 17, 2008 9:35 AM
Wazza - You're supposed to say "Praise Jesus! HOSANNA! HOSANNA! GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST!"
You pagan-atheist baby-eater.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 17, 2008 9:37 AM
Huh? Ken Miller, Catholic. Michael Behe, Catholic. That Vatican astronomer guy, Catholic. Cardinal Schoenborn, Catholic. Francisco Ayala, former Dominican priest who refuses to discuss his current state of belief.Posted by: Ranson | September 17, 2008 9:38 AM
So, you're saying that "nobody" is Uri Geller? Or maybe Jon Edward?
...
Sylvia Browne?
Posted by: Deepsix | September 17, 2008 9:44 AM
I hear the KKK is going to form an advisory council that is "non-racist".
Posted by: Darth Wader | September 17, 2008 9:47 AM
You seem to be saying "brown" an awful lot. Are you okay?
-Ms. Hoover
Posted by: S.Scott | September 17, 2008 9:47 AM
Are you claiming that all scientisis are atheist? Of course the "overly scientific" is meant to be atheist scientists.
It's perfectly reasonable for a church to exclude non- believers.
I view this as a good thing for science.
Posted by: wazza | September 17, 2008 9:47 AM
But God... I don't eat babies...
jutht adventurouth femaleth over the age of theventeen and looking good in a nightdrethth.
Posted by: Cafeeine | September 17, 2008 9:48 AM
Lets also not forget Dinesh D'Souza....
Actually no, lets forget him.
Posted by: Benny the Icepick | September 17, 2008 9:48 AM
PZ, I have to question your claim that theology isn't science. I mean, it has "-ology" at the end of it. It HAS to be science!
Fine, I'm leaving. Time to worship Tom Cruise in his jetliner spacecraft.
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 17, 2008 9:49 AM
@#17: Sure there are Catholics in the debate but by the RC church's standards that's not a strong presence. A strong Catholic presence would be something more like 12th century Europe.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 17, 2008 9:51 AM
Right. That explains this report from April, 2007:Evolution can't be proven: Pope Benedict
Posted by: Whateverman | September 17, 2008 9:53 AM
Personally, I don't find the Catholic institution to have any more credibility or moral authority than I do. Less in a number of areas.
It's your Blog, PZ, and you should be able to post whatever's going through your head. With that said, this last topic just felt a bit too rabid (imho). I enjoy Pharyngula as it almost always demonstrates the value of reason over emotion, logic over faith - but I think this particular entry is not particularly representative of that.
I'm one of the people you've criticized in the past; I tend to look favorably upon attempts to get science and religion to coexist. Although I think this "congress" isn't going to be particularly effective, each and every instance of religion re-evaluating the cause of this conflict (ie. dogma) is a step in the right direction. I can't help but giving this a cautious thumbs up - even if at the end of the day nothing's changed.
Posted by: James F | September 17, 2008 9:56 AM
This is excellent news - Stephen Meyer must be apoplectic, no Cardinal Schönborn letter this time around. The Vatican is strengthening its theistic evolutionary philosophy, so yes, there will be lots of theologians. The conference obviously won't take the position of philosophical naturalism - I think this is what Archbishop Ravasi meant by his "proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution" gaffe. It would have been refreshing if scientific experts weren't vetted for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), but they've pre-selected a pool of theistic evolutionists for a theistic evolution conference, so it's not so surprising.
Posted by: eric | September 17, 2008 9:57 AM
I can see value in back-to-back presentations of scientific research and theological argument.
Maybe not this venue, but in general I think that such a direct comparison between theological "research" and scientific research isn't going to (as PZ argues) make theologians look more credible. IMO its going to have the opposite effect.
Posted by: tcb | September 17, 2008 9:57 AM
RAH! RAH! RAH! SISS ... BOOM ... BAHHHHHHHH!
(/Twain)
Posted by: Zeno | September 17, 2008 9:59 AM
How cruel of you to attack Catholicism's one unambiguous advantage over most other Christian sects: funny hats!
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 17, 2008 10:00 AM
More from that 2007 article:
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | September 17, 2008 10:02 AM
I'd love to know what the difference is between 'Catholic' evolution and evolution.
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 17, 2008 10:03 AM
I think all the various Orthodox churches have silly hats. Really it's only the Protestants that miss out (except the Anglicans who were founded in their present form by Elizabeth I as a compromise between the principles of the Reformation and silly hat wearing).
Posted by: Rodibidably | September 17, 2008 10:03 AM
I understand why PZ thinks this is a fraud, but I also see it as a positive step in the right direction. Basically the church is telling it's 1.howevermany billion members, that ID and creationism are full of shit. That CAN'T be a bad thing.
Posted by: D.S. Ellis | September 17, 2008 10:04 AM
Anyone remember that debate between the theological pundits and the supercomputer Deep Thought from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
"What we demand is an absence of total facts!"
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Posted by: Sigmund | September 17, 2008 10:04 AM
#32
I think all he's saying is that we shouldn't take it as gospel.
Posted by: Canuck | September 17, 2008 10:05 AM
That would be funny if it weren't sad. Overly scientific? WTF is up with that. How do you get overly scientific? I would question the contention that such a thing was even possible. Religion really does make people loony.
Posted by: Michael Kremer | September 17, 2008 10:06 AM
I suggest everyone read the entire story, and then look a bit farther afield than this one story, before jumping to conclusions.
PZ cherry-picks the story he links to for the bits that can be made to look bad, and manages to leave out all the parts that might make the conference organizers look good. For example, he leaves out that the organizers hope that "the encounter will help theologians and philosophers be "a bit more humble and learn to listen a bit more" to what science is unveiling about humanity and the world." And, that the organizers said that "hopes that Catholics would gain greater understanding of the issues has not yet materialized." And, that "the March conference and other initiatives planned by Notre Dame and the Vatican would foster the development of "informed Catholic thought" on the subject." (Phillip Sloan, who is quoted here and is one of the organizers from Notre Dame, is a historian of science specializing in 18th and 19th century biology.)
Looking a bit farther afield, one discovers that the conference is not directly being organized by the Vatican, but by two (yes, Catholic) universities: the Gregorian in Rome and Notre Dame in the US.
Here are a couple of secular sources: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4769085.ece
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSLG62672220080916?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=22&sp=true
The Times reports that speakers will include "two Cambridge lecturers, the archaeologist Lord Renfrew, and the paleontologist Simon Conway Morris."
And from the Catholic News Agency (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13812) we learn that the invitees include "Nobel laureate Werner Arber, the Templeton Prize winner Michael Heller, Prof. John Barrow of Cambridge, the great neurologist Marc Jeannerod and many others."
Posted by: Heresiarch | September 17, 2008 10:10 AM
In 'Catholic' evolution, carnivores eat fish instead of red meat on Fridays.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 17, 2008 10:12 AM
"I'd love to know what the difference is between 'Catholic' evolution and evolution."
Catholic evolution :
If put in a suitable environment, a piece of bread can evolve into a piece of the flesh of a man who died 2,000 years ago.
Posted by: James F | September 17, 2008 10:12 AM
#39
Thanks for that, Michael. If Prof. Heller is there, ID is in for a smackdown.
Posted by: SC | September 17, 2008 10:15 AM
In other words, use confusion-torture to make them more pliable. :)
Posted by: Todd | September 17, 2008 10:16 AM
I agree with BDC, awesome post title (and article). Can we get that on a T-shirt or other merkindise (sorry)?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 17, 2008 10:17 AM
If this is to be a conference about evolution then the religious views of those attending is simply not relevant. What would matter would be the scientific credentials of the attendees.
Where this to be a conference on the interface of evolution and faith, in particular Catholicism then the religious views of the attendees does matter.
So what is this conference ? A science conference or one looking at science and religion ? Which ever it is, the Catholic Church is not being honest about it.
Posted by: Darth Wader | September 17, 2008 10:17 AM
I don't like things overly sciencey either. Thats why I enjoy Science Lite. Its in the same packaging, but is watered down. Now with half the facts and 10% less integrity of other "world views".
Seriously its stupid, but I'd take them being stupid and having a retarded conference than putting scientists under house arrest.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | September 17, 2008 10:17 AM
On the other hand, mocking spelling is obviously an advanced technique, taught only at the highest levels (possibly some sort of advanced degree in schoolyard argumentation)...
I'd imagine that the main source of repulsion for any observer of Catholisism is the pompous dictat handed out to the poor, the vulnerable, and well-meaning believers by a man who claims divinity, sits atop a throne whilst the meek and mild cow at his feet, and lives in a golden palace.
A virgin who claims authority on sex; a blinkered theologist who claims authority on matters scientific and technological; a cosseted and unworldy aristocrat who claims to understand all things sociological and economic.
Posted by: Jérôme ^ | September 17, 2008 10:17 AM
This conference looks like a good idea to me! It's way past time the Catholic church incorporated facts from the real world into their theology. Oh, and by the way, they have been far better at this than a lot of Protestant churches, who stick to their fundamentalism since the days of Martin Luther.
Posted by: E.V. | September 17, 2008 10:18 AM
Poor little deluded Nobody. Uptight Papist, eh?
Touche! Except...
.
A poet, no less! Ah yes, the "I know you are but what am I? Take that!" school of rebuttal. You left out "nanny nanny boo boo". Are you going to stamp your feet and hold your breath because you feel PZ doesn't respect your irrational belief in mystical bullshit? You're old enough to put beliefs in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and non-existant deities behind you. Obviously you're too childish to do so. Go say a few "Hail Marys" on your rosary before you have an apoplexy, and step away from the computer, dolt.
Posted by: strongCatholicpresence386sx | September 17, 2008 10:19 AM
I'd love to know what the difference is between 'Catholic' evolution and evolution.
Simple. Catholic evolution is evolution with a strong Catholic presence! There you go.
Posted by: Merkin Muffley | September 17, 2008 10:19 AM
I am your merkin.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | September 17, 2008 10:25 AM
I just want to strap these people into a chair, break out the Beethoven and eye drops, and show them two slides:
1. The problem with evolution is there's too darned much science in it.
2. The problem with engineering is there's too darned much math in it.
And repeat until they show some sign of revulsion at the cognitive dissonance.
Oh, and #23? Right on. D'Souza is a disgusting creature, a man whose only reason for pursing the credentials of a higher education was to bolster himself as an opponent of intellectual integrity, to use his degrees as a footstool at the rim of our common well, the better to pour his poison in.
Posted by: astrobiologiste | September 17, 2008 10:26 AM
PZ, I'm going to have to ask you to give them the benefit of the doubt. I studied all my life in a catholic school in Mexico, and my biology teacher in 7th grade was an ex-seminarist who had a degree in biology and no problems talking about evolution. I've also met several theologians who have no problem discussion the possibility of god not existing (I met one in the catholic high school i attended).Also, catholics in general, at least in Mexico (with a few notable exceptions) are open to the scientific facts.
Theologians are serious folk, and have a good background in philosophy and are miles away from the creationists/ID bunch who, sometimes, can't even spell correctly.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 17, 2008 10:27 AM
So it is NOT a science conference.
Why are the organisers claim it is then ?
Posted by: SteveM | September 17, 2008 10:30 AM
Sorry for the tangent, but this statement brought to mind a segment from the National Geographic program "How to Build a Better Creature". Although the program was a shameless "infomercial" for Spore, there was a lot of fascinating evo-devo presented. One piece in particular discussed the factors that contributed to the size of the human brain compared to other primates. All other primates have very powerful jaw muscles that restrict the size of the skull. Only humans have a mutation there that essentially gives us a form of "muscular dystrophy" of the jaw muscle, and this is very likely what allowed the human skull to enlarge to accommodate a larger brain. It seemed to me to be a very powerful argument for evolution and does not require a 2 million year laboratory experiment to replicate it in order to "verify or disprove" the theory.
The thing is, it is not just this example, everywhere you look in biology, you see the same kind thing, small changes in the genome or its expression resulting in different species.
"Means, motive and opportunity" all seem to be present and observable in support of evolution, isn't that enough to "convict", to say evolution is guilty of all this wonderful diversity around us?
Posted by: Chemist | September 17, 2008 10:30 AM
"What's for dessert?" (#6)
Why, a cup of blood and a loaf (biscuit) of flesh, of course!
(Think I'll dine down at the local McD or KFC.) ;-)
Posted by: E.V. | September 17, 2008 10:31 AM
Merkin, huh? Are you implying the Vatican is lousy?
Posted by: SC | September 17, 2008 10:31 AM
High hopes indeed. I'm so tired of these people. They can take their sham humility and their "informed Catholic thought" and shove it. Seriously. What knowledge have they produced to justify anything but humility in the face of science?
Posted by: Jason | September 17, 2008 10:32 AM
Afterword, the Catholic Church will take on the issue of poverty, with a meeting in a room made of solid gold.
This will be followed by an all you can eat brunch, featuring the worlds finest caterers, in which the Vatican will discuss the issue of global hunger.
The Holy Council will then have a meeting in the Vatican's own coal burning power plant, (driven there by SUV motorcade) to conteplate what to do about Global Warming.
Finally, the church will solidify its commitment to rational, transparent, open dialogue, by sealing off the Vatican from the outside world forever.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 17, 2008 10:32 AM
I think the problem is that the organisers are claiming this is a scientific conference. Religion does not belong in a scientific conference. If they want the conference to look at how religion interacts with science, and in particular with evolution, then they need to stop claiming it is a scientific conference and sell it as a theological one.
Posted by: Roger | September 17, 2008 10:33 AM
Hmmm. Interesting that this comes within days of the Anglican church announcing a proposed apology to Darwin. Do you get the feeling that Christianity is backtracking rapidly in the hope of stopping the haemorraging of it's flock ?
Rog
Posted by: dubiquiabs | September 17, 2008 10:33 AM
Hey, the RCC is a business. Consistent with the business model, there is a need for further product differentiation, beyond the funny hats. The conference aims to update the product:'Buy Catholic Woo™! New and improved, goes down better!!
Now with 30% more Science content than other Woo!!!'
(Suck on that, Baptists, Evangelicals, et al.)
Posted by: Kobra | September 17, 2008 10:35 AM
BLAM!
That was the sound of PZ smacking the Vatican with the Warhammer of Fallacy! (+5, by the way.)
Posted by: Tulse | September 17, 2008 10:39 AM
Or, as we say in my religion, "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
And Michael Kremer, I note that you don't actually refute any of the direct quotes about the "not too sciency", religion-friendly nature of the conference and its participants (and here's a hint: a "Templeton Prize winner" is by definition religion-friendly).
Posted by: Bert Chadick | September 17, 2008 10:41 AM
Top five things said at the Vatican's Evolution Congress:
5. Ooh! Nice Hat!
4. So what's the deal with all the crackers and cheap wine?
3. No Padre, I don't think alter boys are pretty due to natural selection.
2. Mr Donohue, please stop burning heretics out on the lawn.
1. So, Your Excellency. What do we do now? Do you mail me the check or what?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 17, 2008 10:43 AM
PZ's objections seemed harmless but overdone--until I hit the "overly scientific" BS.
Freedom and all that is a good reason not to be terribly concerned about people trying to make religion and science compatible, so long as they're not going to be anti-science. When they're worried that a discussion could have participants that are "overly scientific," you know that they're just concerned about those who would use the same standards to judge the Resurrection as they do an auto accident, or malarial evolution.
Screw that.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Interrobang | September 17, 2008 10:48 AM
For example, he leaves out that the organizers hope that "the encounter will help theologians and philosophers be "a bit more humble and learn to listen a bit more" to what science is unveiling about humanity and the world."
That's not "cherry-picking," it's leaving out information that's irrelevant to the point. If the point of the conference is to educate theologians and philosophers, then it's a theology and philosophy conference, and shouldn't be masquerading as a scientific conference.
Me, I'm an arts and social sciences kind of person all the way, so intersectionality (woo! grad school word!) really isn't a big deal to me. On the other hand, the point of having an interdisciplinary conference is to, you know, cross-pollinate ideas (a concept to which the Catholic Church seems highly resistant if not immune), not to piggyback prestige off of the most highly-regarded discipline of the bunch...
Posted by: AAB | September 17, 2008 10:52 AM
The problem with evolution is that scientists are abandoning it by the flocks. Even the promiment atheist biologist PZ Myers quips in his latest post:
"..the whole problem with evolutionary biology is that we don't have enough religion in it.."
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 17, 2008 10:52 AM
Another point that need to be made is that a conference that looks at how religion and science can co-exist should still invite those who think they cannot.
Posted by: Chris Crawford | September 17, 2008 10:55 AM
PZ, I think you're fundamentally wrong on this post. Yes, the "overly scientific" quote is risible, but I'm willing to attribute that to a language-challenged writer trying to sneak around the word "atheistic".
This conference strikes me as an attempt to reconcile science and religion in a rational way. Yes, I know that you consider the attempt preposterous, but I see it as a step forward for them. The mistake you are making is "the perfect is the enemy of the good". You would condemn Austalopithecus as fundamentally not human, where I see Australopithecus as an evolutionary step forward.
Posted by: Jams | September 17, 2008 10:56 AM
Pontifical Council for Culture!
...is Bono on that?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 17, 2008 10:56 AM
Please tell me this was supposed to be humour.
Posted by: SiMPel MYnd | September 17, 2008 10:56 AM
And which parts are those that make the organizers look good? From my perspective, the examples that are cited don't make the organizers look particularly good. Headed in the right direction? Maybe. Let's see what comes out of the conference. But, good? No way.
Why should we reward them for being humble about what science reveals and listening to what scientists say about... oh... SCIENCE??!! (The reason they wear pointy hats is because it makes it easier for them to bury their heads in the sand. )
That's the real problem in this country (US)--the huge anti-intellectual sentiment. If an idea or area of study isn't simple or doesn't conform to "common sense", then the average guy on the street doesn't listen. They would rather elect a VP with "common sense", "small town wisdom", and "Xtian values" than someone who actually has experience and knowledge dealing with national issues. They would rather believe that the Earth is a few thousand years old because some old book, with enough inconsistencies and holes in it to drive an ark through, says so. They would rather believe that little Timmy has autism due to vaccinations because some celebrity says so.
So, no, I don't think that the conference organizers, or anyone else who refuses to use their Zeus-given brains, look particularly "good".
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 17, 2008 10:58 AM
SteveM @55
The old "it's not something you can prove in a laboratory!" line. We've heard that one before. Your examples are all good, but lost on people who wipe their butts with evidence. Latching on to only one way to verify evidence as a way to attack the evidence and rational inferences made from it cleverly side-steps the whole underlying subtext: (which I liberally paraphrase) "I have no respect or use for evidence what-so-ever as all I need to know is in this book. But if I did regard evidence as having any importance, this evidence does not conform to my 5th grade understanding of how science works. Therefore, evolution can't be true. So there."
Nice try though.
Posted by: GentlePath | September 17, 2008 11:00 AM
Catholic evolution begins with and is guided by an imaginary magical being who generally sits back and lets science roll along its merry way, but occasionally decides to magically suspend the rules.
That's allowed because he (not she) created the rules.
Occasionally irreverent people forget who's the boss so the magical being does some big juju as a reminder. That's when you get Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich. But more often it's just the every day magic of men in dresses that say special words which magically transform the flesh of a dead god into a cracker.
This goes way beyond a mere presence. It's super-duper magic + science.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 17, 2008 11:01 AM
You did not bother explaining what religion would be doing at a SCIENTIFIC conference.
It seems you do not think this is a scientific conference, so can you explain why organisers are claiming it is ? It seems to me that you are condoning their wilful dishonesty. They are trying to pretend this is a scientific conference in order to garner some kudos, and yet it is really a theological conference. Such blatant dishonesty is not a step forward.
Posted by: gma | September 17, 2008 11:02 AM
I have the perfect US delegation for this conference: John McCain and Sarah Palin.
He is wants the US to be on god's side and she is a distinguished palinologist.
The US will be a better place if they reform the Vatican instead of the US with more of the same we got from god's disciple GWB.
Posted by: Jose | September 17, 2008 11:05 AM
Or we could, you know, approcah them on this in an intellectual and civil manner, and encourage them to embrace even more science.
But, no, let's dump all over them with scatological imagery straight out of the Middle School handbook. That'll work *much* better. Has anyone fired off the "Liar liar pants on fire" gambit yet?
Richard Harris said: Fuck the Pope
Another genius speaks!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 17, 2008 11:11 AM
You mean civil as including being honest ?
What is honest about their claiming this is a scientific conference when in fact it is a theological one ? Such a conference may well have some value if it helps them embrace reason but there is no excuse for them lying about the nature of the event.
Posted by: Barry | September 17, 2008 11:13 AM
Why all this unwarranted ridicule of "funny hats" and dress? It's almost as if some of you have never been to a university graduation ceremony. Is that true?
Posted by: Janine ID | September 17, 2008 11:14 AM
I'm proud to be a merkin!
Where at least I know I'm free!
Posted by: BadeMart | September 17, 2008 11:14 AM
What about simply waiting for the proceedings. Proof is so much better than prejudice, is it not?
Posted by: dinkum | September 17, 2008 11:14 AM
Er, yeah. 'Cause that's worked SO fucken well to this point...
Posted by: Jose | September 17, 2008 11:15 AM
What is honest about their claiming this is a scientific conference when in fact it is a theological one ? Such