An important rule of quote-mining

Man... I can't believe these creationist goons have the audacity to state that they are trying to "revive" our dying morality in this country when they have proven time and time again how sleazy and downright dishonest they are.

I'm not sure this one is sleazy dishonesty. I think Denyse is really so stupid that anything containing the word "evolution" or its variants is invariably about her pet issues, and if said signifier is used in a negative way, all the better for her side. Teh stupid runs deep.

a giant sea turtle
swimming in the vast puddle
of god
did one lap
and then another

it climbed out, eventually
and married a baptist
their fertilized eggs are buried in the sand

when the children crawl out
there is much rejoicing
until the seagulls eat most of them

the tide abides

++++

The best part about that post was how incredibly obvious it was that she'd only read the abstract, not the whole paper.

They've sure got some quality scholarship over in the ID camp...

Speaking of creationists, I just got one of those big huge enormous Islamic "Atlas of Creation" books yesterday. I Love this book. It was written as if a stroke patient did the editing. Great pics though, even though this guy can't tell an echinoderm from a polycheate.

On another note, at the same time the book arrived, the janitor in the science and engineering building announced he was a creationist, and said how God and evolution could not mix. He then decided to try and lecture me on the fossil record. I pointed to the TA and told him that she was a Lutheran, and believed in evolution, to which he responded, "See, I am a creationist because I am Catholic." I tried to explain to him how every Catholic University Bio department I have ever heard of teachers evolutionary biology, but it was to no avail. He simply could not grasp how one could believe in "Darwin" as well as a God.

haha, Brian Leiter. What a TERRIBLE person to quote-mine from. He's gotta be all over the Internet, between his blog, law stuff and the Philosophical Gourmet Report (thank you Dr. Leiter, I'd be clueless about grad school without you).

I went to Catholic school for 9 years in the 1980s, we were taught evolution, NOT creationism. Catholic doctrine, at that time stated that, at some point, god inserted a soul into "man," yet "man" evolved just as Darwin proposed, all according to god's plan. AFAIK, it remains the same today. I wonder if your janitor is a new convert.

Fortunately, 9 years of Catholic education taught me enough reason to be able to break free from the church not so long after.

I'm sure O'Leary is a nice old lady, but she is one of the loopiest, most credulous, least intellectually honest, and batshit crazy writers I've run across in some time.

That she is the darling of Uncommon Descent is fitting.

Geez...Most clever philosophers know to leave Leiter well enough alone. Just asking for a good kicking to go quote mining the guy.

Gee: quote-mining, no scientific ethics, outright lies.
This is not how science is done, it's how politics is done.
The obvious logical conclusion is that The Discovery Institute is a political lobby organization and not a center for scientific endeavor.

He simply could not grasp how one could believe in "Darwin" as well as a God.

Believe yes, but a sensible belief in both past fideism? Doubtful. I think that janitor was a whole lot smarter than the 'heads' of his own church.

JimC said:
""Believe yes, but a sensible belief in both past fideism? Doubtful. I think that janitor was a whole lot smarter than the 'heads' of his own church.""

One may not support the other, but there is no contradiction as implied by the Janitor.

DLC, you are completely correct.
The Discovery Institute is a collection of incompetent frauds and shameless hucksters. For them, telling lies for Jesus is the highest calling. Pathetic.

One may not support the other, but there is no contradiction as implied by the Janitor.

I think the janitor is correct. The contradiction exists and he will have none of it. Others create wild rationalizations to combine the two but they are just that.

Gotta love a guy who can come up with a thought-bite like;
"Intelligent Design is simply creationism for those who have consulted a lawyer and a public relations firm;" if indeed he was being original. I've not heard that before.

The Janitor is correct. The whole idea of a God setting up conditions that allow evolution to occur and then stepping in 100,000 years ago and injecting a 'soul' into man (in contrast to every other organism in the universe) is preposterous. It also doesn't explain why Jesus had to die on the cross if Adam and Eve didn't commit that original sin.

The theology I was taught is as follows:
While Adam and Eve may not have literally existed, they stand as a symbol for the very real fallen nature of man. That fallen nature is essentially our continued failure to live up to our potential as moral beings. Thus, to for this very real failure, a very real sacrifice was necessary. Hence Jesus.

Believe yes, but a sensible belief in both past fideism? Doubtful.

As soon as you consider belief in a soul "sensible", it's really easy to believe in this part of Catholic doctrine in the complete absence of evidence. Evolution is all according to God's ineffable plan, or whatever -- in any case, God knew what he was doing and not doing. No more questions. Catholics can go on to even research evolution as if there were no god at all.

Oh, wait. That is fideism.

But what exactly did you mean by "sensible belief"...?

The best part about that post was how incredibly obvious it was that she'd only read the abstract, not the whole paper.

Not even. I have read the abstract and cannot see how reading all of the abstract could lead anyone to believe that evolution is generally irrelevant.

It seems silly, even blasphemous, to argue over what God can/not do. If there is a God, he can damn well use his omni powers to make whatever he wants, including Quantum Mechanics, Intelligent Designs, Punctuated Equilibria, Fake Fossils, and Denyse O'Leary.

While Adam and Eve may not have literally existed, they stand as a symbol for the very real fallen nature of man. That fallen nature is essentially our continued failure to live up to our potential as moral beings. Thus, to for this very real failure, a very real sacrifice was necessary. Hence Jesus.

So, God is so pissed that I fuck other men (or even say fuck) that he needs a human sacrifice (of his own son, no less). It seems like there's a bit of a lack of proportionality here.

So, God is so pissed that I fuck other men (or even say fuck) that he needs a human sacrifice (of his own son, no less).

Well, given the whole ressurection thing, it was more like renting the kid out.

After having read some of Ken Miller's articles regarding evilution, I have to wonder why god loves mollusks more than he loves humans. S/he gave mollusks eyes with a better design than s/he did humans.

To MAJeff: I'm sure that if god objected to your copulating with members of the same sex, s/he could have told you so directly. S/he never told me that. And, since s/he is omnipotent, s/he wouldn't have needed an intermediary (such as a pharasee) to tell me so.

The Janitor is not right.

One can have an almost endless collection of Christian dogmas, and still, on the other hand, keep a rational side for empirical observation of the real world. This is in fact what all Catholic Universities do daily when they teach science as well as Catholic Dogma. The suggested contradiction is a non-sequitur.

From Dan in #1:

Man... I can't believe these creationist goons have the audacity to state that they are trying to "revive" our dying morality in this country when they have proven time and time again how sleazy and downright dishonest they are.

Credit where credit is due: Denyse is a Canuck trying to "revive" dying morality in America (not as easy in Canada: who's kidding who, we're all satanic commies up here with gay marriage and no death penalty).

No need to thank us for the cultural contribution that is Densie. You can keep her. Please.

lago,

I'm sorry but the janitor is correct.

One can have an almost endless collection of Christian dogmas, and still, on the other hand, keep a rational side for empirical observation of the real world. This is in fact what all Catholic Universities do daily when they teach science as well as Catholic Dogma. The suggested contradiction is a non-sequitur

Your missing the point. Of course you can be catholic , baptist, whatever and think evolution is correct. But does it make it possible for you to have this religion tied to it without bending and twisting all manner of logic. The janitor is correct in saying no.

JimC

How is your above claim so?

There is no tying implied. Just as there is no tying of all possible Catholic dogmas to germ theory, there need not be any tie here between evolutionary theory, and faith in a God (even a Catholic version of one).

The fact that you need to take all your antibiotics as to reduce the rise of resistant strains does not require you to pretzel your Catholic Dogma unless that dogma specifically conflicts with these facts. Modern Catholic dogma that is taught at Catholic Universities does not present a conflict between evolution, and their religious views...

I think you yourself see implied contradictions not actually evident and by reading in what is not there, you are seeing bunny wabbits in the sky...

Well, for one, I believe in God and I also believe that evolution is true. It's plain simple, folks.. Can't you see : Darwin IS God!

"Thou Art God!" Grok that, buddy!

"... more like renting the kid out." [Graculus, #22]

renting.. or rending? I still wnat to know what kind of epipheny God had that changed him from the childish, spiteful bastard he shows himself to be in in the OT, into the kind-hearted liberal fop who'd give his own child away to be tortured to death. All for the sake of our immortal souls, no less. Souls he gave us in the first place, even no lesser. WTF is his problem that he's worried about it? Are they like high-end bon-bons in the fridge and they only taste good if kepp pure?

The whole damn thing makes no sense, and boils down to "Because". I don't need a God to tell me "Because". I have children, and even *I* can come up with a better reason to eat my brocolli than "Because"

Re: #22

So, God is so pissed that I fuck other men (or even say fuck) that he needs a human sacrifice (of his own son, no less).

Well, given the whole ressurection thing, it was more like renting the kid out.

So, Jesus was a rent boy?

"Get thee behind me, Satan."

-- CV

So, Jesus was a rent boy?

"This is my body...take...eat...but it'll cost you $250/hr or $1200 for the whole weekend."

Believe yes, but a sensible belief in both past fideism? Doubtful.

As soon as you consider belief in a soul "sensible", it's really easy to believe in this part of Catholic doctrine in the complete absence of evidence. Evolution is all according to God's ineffable plan, or whatever -- in any case, God knew what he was doing and not doing. No more questions. Catholics can go on to even research evolution as if there were no god at all.

Oh, wait. That is fideism.

But what exactly did you mean by "sensible belief"...?

The best part about that post was how incredibly obvious it was that she'd only read the abstract, not the whole paper.

Not even. I have read the abstract and cannot see how reading all of the abstract could lead anyone to believe that evolution is generally irrelevant.