Evolution & the catholic church

[MichaelTDoyle]

hecd2:

One person’s religion is another person’s fairy tale. One person’s religion is another person’s heresy. Good scientists can be of any or no religious persuasion and agree on the science. In that sense, science does transcend religion.

Religion and reason are not mutually exclusive. Reason can be used by all people; hence, science does not transcend religion. Perhaps you might consider that religion is deeper than fairy tales. Until you do, you should probably refrain from commenting on religion.

Oh no - it’s not a personal attack, Michael. It’s not an attack at all. I am simply responding to what *you *said. Do you always interpret any disagreement with your opinions as a personal attack? And the fact is that you *are *wanting to impose your values, not just on your kids, but on mine and everyone else’s.

Please read for comprehension. My arguments (if you go back to actually read what I wrote without impriniting your personal anti-religous bigotry onto them, were statements not regarding persons, but ideas. You on the other hand, called me out; frequently personalizing your argument by addressing me personally and characterizing me as someone wanting to shove my opinions down people’s throats.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I don’t think so - it’s unbelievably naive to think that the billion notional Catholics in the world think as you do.

Not the point, besides insulting me. You specify the argument to a specific morality, while I was originally commenting on the vaccuum of spirituality in education. Please read for comprehension before commenting on my posts.

But even if we assume for the sake of argument the incredible idea that there are a billion catholics who accept every teaching of the church, that still leaves at least five billion people who don’t.

Again, a complete non-sequitor. I never proposed catholicism to be taught in public schools. I merely put it out in answer to your baiting as an example that a great many people follow similar spiritual beliefs; I allow for variations within the main. In point of fact, the real line is to have ANY spiritual values taught in school at all. American schools have no mandatory civics class. No social education class. Nothing. Science is taught in a vacuum and as your own flawed regurgitation of evo-theory shows, the science will be misapplied as THE normative means to valuing and evaluating our human condition.

History shows that such a basis for man evaluating man leads to genocide as some animals end up being mnore equal than others.

In our societies (I am a Brit and I’m assuming you’re an American) the nominal Catholic adherents are in a minority (25% in your case, 10% in my case). There are fewer Catholics than Muslims in the world. There are almost as many Hindus. Moral absolutism is fine in a closed community but has no place in wider society.

Belief in God would mean a belief in absolutism. And your judgement that it has no place is an absolutist judgement. Think about it. Seriously.

We agree! Children *should *be taught that common misconceptions of evolutionary thinking have been misused to justify eugenics and genocide (but not as much as genetics has been. Interestingly, I don’t see genetics being subjected to the same scrutiny and opposition as evolution - and I think I know why that is). Children should be taught that the fact that humans are a species of ape does not undermine their human dignity, and that they owe respect, love and care to their fellow-humans. They should be taught about the importance of co-operation in society and how the evolution of co-operation is the origin of virtue.

Amazing. You prove my case perfectly! “The evolution of cooperation”! You just coopted the theory of physical eviolution to bolster your sociological arguments! (Just as has been done too tragically in history )This is exactly the inherent danger in this theory being misapplied.

People *are *intelligent animals. That’s what we are.

Opinion. One that I disagree with. That you state it as fact should disturb you as it signifies your mind is closed to alternative ideas about your very existence.

We might be much more than that but to minimise the fact that we are great apes, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, chordates, and metazoans is to miss a very important point about us.

We might indeed.

What mechanisms are not working? Condoms work well to prevent unwanted pregnancies and very well as a prophylactic against STDs. The church’s teaching on condoms is, in my view, misguided, immoral, uncharitable and plain wrong.

Do your research. The only successful programs to stem the tide of Aids in africa has been abstinence based. Condoms reinforce the idea that fornication is a-ok; hence, the disease gets the opportunity to spread.

10 second internet search:
xtec.es/~vfeliu/writing/atasks/abstinence.htm

The church’s opposition to condoms is historically recent in spite of being presented, disingenuously to the faithful, as though it were some long standing absolute moral truth, and is, in my opinion, based on a deeply disordered view of human sexuality.

Evidence?

Don’t be bitter. There will always be those who disagree with you, who are good people and who might well be right.Try to embrace a modicum of doubt. History is full of those who are as certain as you are that your views are anathema. And try to accept that there might be decent people who do not share your catholic outlook…

Recite this while looking into a mirror 100 times

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ274.HTM

Do you dispute the historical references? What have you been reading to make you think the magesterium was a-ok with condom usage?

You have some odd notions of Catholicism, likening it to fairy tales and not historical. Don’t you think historians would be crackin’ on the Church if She proclaimed a teaching in reverse of what she had been. This is not some small church in a backyard state in america; but a Church that has been on the vangaurd of western civilization for 1500+ years.

Seriously, consider the possibility that there’s something to offer here that is more than fairy tales and wish fulfillment.

peace

 

[Melchior]

Orogeny:

You are making a very large assumption that the theory of evolution creates more questions than it answers for everyone because that is true for you. I would suggest that that is not true for scientists.

Peace

Tim

That is not an assumption. It does not take a micobiologist to see that there are more unanswered questions in the theory of macro-evolution than there are answered ones. There is no real debate about that. It may be ignored but it cannot be seriously challenged.

 

[PhilVaz]

OK we are up to 4.6 billion threads with 13.8 billion posts. Nice job all 666 of you who participate in these creation-evolution threads.

Yeah I suggest we have a “science” category where all the science threads go. There we can hash out in great detail, the shape (flat), movement (none), size (miniscule), weight (5 tons), age (2000 years old) and personality (angry) of the earth. And the great debate on whether it is hollow or not.

Phil P

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

love this line from the hollow earth page
called the “Atoma”, by channeler Michael Kant who appears in our crystal skull book Mysteries of the Crystal Skulls Revealed

 

[steveandersen]

MichaelTDoyle:

… Amazing. You prove my case perfectly! “The evolution of cooperation”! You just coopted the theory of physical eviolution to bolster your sociological arguments! (Just as has been done too tragically in history )This is exactly the inherent danger in this theory being misapplied…

are you somehow claiming that behavior isn’t related to bioolgy?

of course cooperation is an adaptive feature

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

steveandersen:

are you somehow claiming that behavior isn’t related to bioolgy?

of course cooperation is an adaptive feature

Related? or solely derived? How much will you make it the basis for valuing and evaluating human beings? Man as animal is your basis for determining worthiness to access housing, to breed, to abort? Many do. No fairytale.

Really I need to write more gently. Originally I asked for spirituality in the classroom and that got taken to mean I was instituting a pledge of allegiance to B16 to start every day. sigh

It’s dangerous ground to deploy an interpretion of evolution beyond the physical processes into the weltanschauen.

 

[steveandersen]

MichaelTDoyle:

Related? or solely derived? How much will you make it the basis for valuing and evaluating human beings? Man as animal is your basis for determining worthiness to access housing, to breed, to abort? Many do. No fairytale. …

I know many do but how is that in any way related to evolution?

Evolution is just a tool. Evil isn’t its fault, it’s our fault

People were doing terrible things to each other long before we had technology

Cain didn’t value his brother that much and only needed a club to kill
and I bet you that he never read one science text

How can anyone think that evolution devalues humans when it definitively shows how closely related we all are?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

steveandersen:

I know many do but how is that in any way related to evolution?

Evolution is just a tool. Evil isn’t its fault, it’s our fault

agreed

People were doing terrible things to each other long before we had technology

True and many people viewed their fellow man as animals or tools too. Fallen nature is not a dogma that requires much explanation.

Cain didn’t value his brother that much and only needed a club to kill
and I bet you that he never read one science text

agreed

How can anyone think that evolution devalues humans when it definitively shows how closely related we all are?

I did not write that the theory of physical evolution devalues humans. I state that the misapplication of the theory of evolution, e.g.that man is just an animal, devalues life. That using evolution to place a value on human life is intrinsically evil.

When we fail to recognize the special character of man, when we lower our estimation of man to that of animals we then treat each other accordingly.

There’s a better Way.

peace

 

[hecd2]

Michael, it seems to to me that any disagreement with your opinions makes you angry. Perhaps I should just leave this, but you have made some exaggerated claims, particularly with regard to the efficacy of abstinence-only schemes that are just plain wrong: such claims, if believed, have the power to do great harm and I cannot, in all conscience, leave them as they stand. See below. But first, I want to comment on some other points of disagreement.

MichaelTDoyle:

hecd2:

One person’s religion is another person’s fairy tale. One person’s religion is another person’s heresy. Good scientists can be of any or no religious persuasion and agree on the science. In that sense, science does transcend religion.

Religion and reason are not mutually exclusive. Reason can be used by all people; hence, science does not transcend religion.

I agree that religion and reason are not mutually exclusive, nevertheless science does transcend religion in the sense that I claimed - it is the only universal system of understanding the world.

Perhaps you might consider that religion is deeper than fairy tales. Until you do, you should probably refrain from commenting on religion.

Yes, indeed religious belief is deeper than fairy tales to those who believe it. It can be a powerful motivator for good in the world, a marvellous glue for society and a very sincere and beautiful world-view. However, I don’t know any religious person who does not regard some of the sincerely held beliefs of those of other faiths as, essentially, fairy tales. For example, what is your view of the truth of the Lord Krishna’s support for the Pandavas in Kurukshetra wars of the Mahabharata? Whilst acknowledging the sincerity and value of Catholic beliefs (beliefs that I know and understand intimately by the way), I regard many of them as fairy tales, some of which have deep meanings.That is my point - whose spirituality and morality shall we teach in school? This is not a rhetorical or hypothetical question but a practical one. BTW, whether and when I comment on religion is matter entirely of my choosing.

My arguments (if you go back to actually read what I wrote without impriniting your personal anti-religous bigotry

How does it help you to characterise those who disagree with you as bigots? I see little respect for secular people in the expession of your ideas, but perhaps I am over-reacting to that.

onto them, were statements not regarding persons, but ideas. You on the other hand, called me out; frequently personalizing your argument by addressing me personally and characterizing me as someone wanting to shove my opinions down people’s throats.

I apologise for misinterpreting you if, actually, you were not suggesting that children in public schools should be taught specific catholic morality such as the Church’s controversial opposition to therapeutic embryonic stem cell therapy (‘Soon we may be harvesting our children to cure our cancers’), but rather merely proposing the teaching of a spirituality that even conscientious humanists can accept.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

MichaelTDoyle:

hecd2:

it’s unbelievably naive to think that the billion notional Catholics in the world think as you do

You specify the argument to a specific morality, while I was originally commenting on the vaccuum of spirituality in education.

I am sorry, Michael, but you are the one who introduced the matter of the number of catholics into the discussion thus:

It’s not my moral absolutism, it is the moral absolutism shared by about a billion other people

I never proposed catholicism to be taught in public schools… In point of fact, the real line is to have ANY spiritual values taught in school at all. American schools have no mandatory civics class. No social education class. Nothing. Science is taught in a vacuum and as your own flawed regurgitation of evo-theory shows, the science will be misapplied as THE normative means to valuing and evaluating our human condition.

Well let me hold out this olive branch. I agree with you that the situation that you describe is wrong. Children need a moral and ethical framework to live good lives and such a structure should be built by their parents and their education.

However, I will also say that I am a professional scientist and my perspective on evolution is not a ‘flawed regurgitation’.

Moral absolutism is fine in a closed community but has no place in wider society.

Belief in God would mean a belief in absolutism. And your judgement that it has no place is an absolutist judgement. Think about it. Seriously.

Belief in God is not necessarily a belief in absolutism. One can, and many do, believe in God without insisting on absolutist morality. And my judgement that absolutism has no place in a wider pluralist society is not an absolutist judgement, but actually a rather relative one. Let’s put it in positive terms: we need to accomodate and respect the diverse views of people in a pluralist society where there are many different spritual beliefs including the conscientious rejection of a belief in God. Absolutism is the opinion that a single religious view is the sole source of virtue and should be adhered to by all society - my position is the antithesis of that.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

hecd2:

Michael, it seems to to me that any disagreement with your opinions makes you angry.

No being personally attacked and my meaning being taken out of context did anger me. I should be more patiernbt however.

Perhaps I should just leave this, but you have made some exaggerated claims, particularly with regard to the efficacy of abstinence-only schemes that are just plain wrong: such claims, if believed, have the power to do great harm and I cannot, in all conscience, leave them as they stand. See below. But first, I want to comment on some other points of disagreement.

Again, evidence? I showed a link about the efficacy of abstinence only programs.

I agree that religion and reason are not mutually exclusive, nevertheless science does transcend religion in the sense that I claimed - it is the only universal system of understanding the world.

Logic is a universal system of understanding. More importantly, so is charity. we’ll have to agree to disagreee.

Yes, indeed religious belief is deeper than fairy tales to those who believe it. It can be a powerful motivator for good in the world, a marvellous glue for society and a very sincere and beautiful world-view. However, I don’t know any religious person who does not regard some of the sincerely held beliefs of those of other faiths as, essentially, fairy tales. For example, what is your view of the truth of the Lord Krishna’s support for the Pandavas in Kurukshetra wars of the Mahabharata? Whilst acknowledging the sincerity and value of Catholic beliefs (beliefs that I know and understand intimately by the way), I regard many of them as fairy tales, some of which have deep meanings.That is my point - whose spirituality and morality shall we teach in school? This is not a rhetorical or hypothetical question but a practical one.

If you had read my first post you would see that I never advocated Catholicism. In a pluralistic society we are called to evangelize, not force. Many religions have aspects of the Truth. Surely, some kind of ethics class on common ground can be builty upon that. In my post about a billion Catholics, my point was not to shove Catholicism down people’s throats, but that many many people share a strikingly similar spiritual outlook.

BTW, whether and when I comment on religion is matter entirely of my choosing.

I’m just offering advice. I wouldn’t dream of debating a geologist on matters of carbon dating, cause I ain’t got the background. So I offered the same advice to you that I would take if I held the belief set you proposed.

How does it help you to characterise those who disagree with you as bigots? I see little respect for secular people in the expession of your ideas, but perhaps I am over-reacting to that.

You did more than simply disagree with me; you launched into an adhominem attack on me personally after my first post (There is a spiritual vacuum in schools) and replied to some imaginary extension of what I wrote (I want to force Catholicism/Christianity into the Public schools.) Such a tyrannical assumption makes it a fair assumption that you may be in fact a religous bigot. At the least you might wish to question why you assumed my words were calling for a militant and tyrannical response.

Look at my first post. I offered up questions to issues that were troubling me deeply and still do: abortion, fornication and the depiction of humans as animals. What you read as militant tyranny, is my horror at the evil done by man to man, seen as less than man. I did not pose a specific response. Point in fact I do not have one. I am asking for one from those who also believe man is not just an animal.

I want to work toward a solution that promotes and protects the dignity of all human life. I apologize too if I came on rough.

peace

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I went back and reread my first post since I based my last post on memory. I did call for one action item:

The debate on evolution in the classroom needs to be a debate about spiritual values in the classroom.

I think that’s a great place to start a public discussion and arrive at some sense of dignity of Man that all Americans can accept and open the debate to the dignity of human life at all stages of development.

 

[hecd2]

MichaelTDoyle:

hecd2:

Children should be taught that the fact that humans are a species of ape does not undermine their human dignity, and that they owe respect, love and care to their fellow-humans. They should be taught about the importance of co-operation in society and how the evolution of co-operation is the origin of virtue.

Amazing. You prove my case perfectly! “The evolution of cooperation”! You just coopted the theory of physical eviolution to bolster your sociological arguments! (Just as has been done too tragically in history )This is exactly the inherent danger in this theory being misapplied.

No - you prove mine, that you are not prepared to countenance the biological basis of human psychology ( a basis, by the way that is proven beyond doubt by functional MRI amongst other evidence). Humans are not pure spirits. We are spiritual but we are also animals, we have evolved from common ancestors with the rest of the biological world, and to deny that is to miss an extremely important aspect of humanity from a philosophical, psychological, physiological, and anatomical point of view.

As far as the evolution of co-operation goes, an idea that so outraged you, what is wrong with understanding the evolutionary basis of the human urge to cooperate? The key research names here are Axelrod, Dugatkin, Ridley, Sigmund, Nowak, Roberts, Sheratt, Fehr and Gaechter. The seminal work is the book by Robert Axelrod called ‘The Evolution of Co-operation’ - it is the foundation for a well respected branch of evolutionary psychology based on game theory, observation and experiment. You seem to be a strong dualist and want to deny the intersection of the spiritual and physical worlds. Many of us think that spirit and matter are deeply intertwined and depend one on the other.

People *are *

intelligent animals. That’s what we are.
Opinion. One that I disagree with. That you state it as fact should disturb you as it signifies your mind is closed to alternative ideas about your very existence.

I’m sorry, but I do think that anyone who denies that human beings are animals is simply being perverse given the overwhelming evidence for our common ancestry with all other living things.It is a fact. We fit perfectly into the phylogeny of species We are obviously mammals. And vertebrates, tetrapods, chordates, metazoans, eukaryotes, living things in the great tree of life. Any of these labels are a factual (but not necessarily complete) description of human beings.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Hec2d,

quickie responses
It didn’t outrage me so much as happily surprised me that you inadvertantly proved my point to many reading through this thread, ref. the misapplication of the theory of evolution as a tool to value/devalue human dignity.
I clarified my position on cooperation in response to Steve anderson. (post 207)
My argument is that we are not just animals. I think that is a dangerous notion given how humans treat animals, much less each other.

Peace

I have a feeling we are not as horribly far apart as might appear

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Maybe an interesting perception: I am taking these ideas based on their impact in the political world, e.g. spartan utilitarianism, fascism, capitalism and Hec is looking at it from a more naturalist p.o.v. Neither viewpoint is wrong; but they emphasize different aspects of the debate.

I can never forget the black and white reel footage of the Nazis going over human skulls and demonstrating how some showed they were inferior to the master race.

I heard of Stalin slaughtering whole villages deeming them unworthy of life.

In China there is a surplus of men now. What happened to the baby girls?

I march pro-life and discover that there are more abortions than births in Russia now.

In the Sudan I heard of humanitarian aid being blocked to reach people in need.

In America, I read that abortion was legal to the ninth month

The government sent police in to allow the murder of Terry Schiavo by dehydration.

Yeah, the freedom to teach science in the classroom is important. Is it comparitively more important than instruction in the dignity of man? There is a relationship between the two ideas, the coming together of spirit and flesh exemplified respectively in the nexus of evolution and spirtuality. Wouldn’t it be great if a greater good could come out of this debate leading America to seriously ponder the intrinsic worth of a human being?

 

[hecd2]

MichaelTDoyle:

Look at my first post. I offered up questions to issues that were troubling me deeply and still do: abortion, fornication and the depiction of humans as animals. What you read as militant tyranny, is my horror at the evil done by man to man, seen as less than man. I did not pose a specific response. Point in fact I do not have one. I am asking for one from those who also believe man is not just an animal.

I want to work toward a solution that promotes and protects the dignity of all human life. I apologize too if I came on rough.

peace

Michael, I will come back to the contraception thing because I think that’s important, but I’ve just seen this post and I want to use it as a building block.

I am sorry if I came over to you as insulting or as presenting an ad hominem. Let me explain: two things got to me: one your implied assumption that all conscientious people would agree that embryonic stem cell therapy or therapeutic cloning is wrong. There ARE people of good will who think differently (and I, frankly, am one of them). The other insulting thing, to my obviously over-sensitive mind, was what I understood as characterisation of secular people as being unfit to teach morality and ethics.

We have both felt insulted and we have both taken offence; and our values are perhaps not as far apart as the last two days might suggest. I sincerely apologise if I have imputed to you a tyrannical view that is alien to you.

I stand by my opinion that specific brands of religion have no place in a public school, and I stand by the fact that humans are very intelligent animals. But my horror at the evil done by man to man is no less than yours and I also want to work to find solutions that promote the dignity of human life. I just happen to think that minimising the facts of nature, that humans are evolved animals whose anatomy, physiology and psychology depend on our evolutionary history, is to attempt the task we both wish to accomplish with one hand tied behind our backs. An understanding of evolution and of the reason that we are what we are is a helpful tool in the task to create virtuous meaning in human lives.

Having said that, I am with you that our children need to be taught a basis for living a moral and ethical life, and I deplore with you the fact that ‘American schools have no mandatory civics class. No social education class. Nothing’.

So, we disagree about many fundamental things that we just have to agree to disagree on. You think I am a religious ignoramus, but actually I understand what I reject very well. I have erroneously interpreted what you’ve said in a way that has angered and hurt you, and I am sorry for it. However, we have, in spite of all the signs against it, found common ground. We could, in spite of all initial appearances, work well together to achieve things that we both think are important.

I do, however, need to come back to the AIDS/condoms thing

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

MichaelTDoyle:

Maybe an interesting perception: I am taking these ideas based on their impact in the political world, e.g. spartan utilitarianism, fascism, capitalism and Hec is looking at it from a more naturalist p.o.v. Neither viewpoint is wrong; but they emphasize different aspects of the debate.

Yes. My name is Alec, not Hec.

I can never forget the black and white reel footage of the Nazis going over human skulls and demonstrating how some showed they were inferior to the master race.

Well I am horrified and haunted by that too. But good science tells us that all humans in the world are genetically closer than different tribes of chimp. You know, we need to look at this from an historical as well as a scientific and religious perspective. The roots of Nazism go back to the first World War and the humiliation and economic punishment of Germany. Germany was then and is now a nominally Christian country. The problem of dehumanisation is more complex than can be explained by blaming it on atheism or humanism or evolution (and to do so is a disservice to those who would prevent such things happening in future). I am very close to a dreadful conflict in Northern Ireland that we all hope is close to resolution. But have you any idea what opinions practising Catholics and Protestants in that province have had of each other? What about the genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, devout states? Until recently, dehumanisation in South Africa was rampant and supported by the pillars of the Dutch Reforrmed Church. The geniocide in Rwanda was perpetrated in a Christian land. Don’t be selective and don’t trivialise dehumanisation nor offer up glib analyis - to do so is to give succour to our mutual enemy.

I heard of Stalin slaughtering whole villages deeming them unworthy of life.

In China there is a surplus of men now. What happened to the baby girls?

These things are reprehensible.

I march pro-life and discover that there are more abortions than births in Russia now.

That in itslf is not an issue for me.

In America, I read that abortion was legal to the ninth month

I heard that too and I am utterly shocked by it and if I could campaign or lobby effectively against it, I would.

The government sent police in to allow the murder of Terry Schiavo by dehydration.

Michael, this is hard. Let’s not assume individual evil. I believe that the courts and the individual officers of the courts struggled hard with a tragic and difficult case to determine what was right. So did the medical experts - I know you deplore the finding, but this is one of those cases where society concluded differently from you - let’s not trivialise the agonising decision faced by those who had to make it. It was not a black and white moral choice and not in the same category as genocide.

Wouldn’t it be great if a greater good could come out of this debate leading America to seriously ponder the intrinsic worth of a human being?

Yes, not just in America, but in the world.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wanerious]

I don’t think this has been posted before (apologies if it has) but here is the ruling from the federal district court today in the Dover, PA case regarding teaching intelligent design in the classroom.

i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

It might be interesting to note that this is a Bush-appointed, church-going, Republican, non-activist judge. His sharp and harsh language is a scathing indictment of the principals in the case — I was ignorant of the histories of the case itself and the now-former school board members. The testimony thoroughly discredits the ID expert witnesses (Behe, et al) as well as showing the board members to exhibit evasive and disreputable testimony as well as “outright lies”. It is quite a read — one might want to start with the “Conclusions” section at the end. It throws into sharp focus many of the issues we’ve been wrestling with on this forum.