I was commenting more on the social aspects that the science of Darwin (and followers, etc) unleashed - not the science itself.
Darwin has reigned?
Godwin’s Law!
Hilarious
of course I’m worried about a well educated population
True
Perhaps for the same reason that although English is taught, History is taught, Mathematics is taught, etc…few people in the US actually understand these subjects either.Darwin has reigned?
Then how come so few people in the US actually understand evolution or many other basic scientific principals?
Instead of saying “Funny how that turned out”, it would have been better to have said “And we all know how badly that turned out.” Sorry if I offended anyone.
Well, let’s see. Japan also had mass eugenics programs - in China.
But not so well educated that they should know something about the philosophies accepted by a large number of people, over a very large time period?
The Low Country (AKA the Slow Country for impatient Yankee retirees) is the local name for the coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia. The northern extreme near Myrtle Beach is sometimes called the “Golden Strand” while the southern end in Georgia is sometimes called the “Costal Empire”
The idea that all men were entitled to rights, regardless of their abilities? That was the one social position Darwin publicly took. That seems to be a good thing to me. Creationsts, particularly in the US, were arguing that some people were not entitled to equal rights. You’re telling me that you think the civil rights movement was evil?
You think the Spartans, Romans, and many other ancient peoples were Darwinists? They had a tradition of removing the “unfit” when they were born. No, any ideology will serve when you are inclined to evil, and any can be twisted to evil purpose.
After schools were integrated in the south, all the segregation academies were teaching creationism, so I think that’s unlikely.
Translation: Ed can’t deny that it’s true, but he’s uncomfortable being on the Soviet side, so he calls it “overly simplistic.”
Ed, every time you lose an argument, you come out spitting and scratching. It reflects poorly on you.
Too bad. God, as He is presented in Imago Dei, is a good and real God, Who is the Creator of our world, and our Maker.
You have a dispute with the church over the way God managed creation. And you don’t like anyone reminding you about it. But it’s not my fault. Let God be God, Ed.
Barbarian,
Not mine, the Pope’s:
Yep. We are evolved from other organisms, but we are not a casual meaningless product of evolution. Cafeteria Catholics refuse to accept all of the Church’s teaching.
Our evolution from other organisms is, as the Pope says, “virtually certain.” But that doesn’t mean we are a meaningless, casual product of evolution.
Absolutely it is. I recognize that we are evolved from other creatures, but like the Pope, I deny that this fact says we are mere, meaningless products of evolution. This is the teaching of the Church, and I accept it. All of it. Not everyone here does, um?
As sure as anything you can get in science. Virtually certain.
Oh, rubbish. I criticize those who pick and chose what part of the magisterium they will accept. Rightly so.
Yep. Baptized, confirmed, married, and living as a Roman Catholic.
Magesterial pronouncements don’t use terms like “virtually certain.”
No kidding. You can be absolutely sure of God. But you can only say that the evidence overwhelmingly supports common descent. That’s the difference between religion and science.
When creationists run out of excuses, they always become angry and abusive, and hurl false accusations. You’re true to the type.
So the magesterium is now declaring scientific dogma? So how does this fit into the faith and morals category? Note: it doesn’t.
Nope. As the Pope says, the Church has an interest in evolution, since it touches on the origin of humans. And the church says that evolutionary theory that does not deny God is compatible with our faith.
It must be galling to those who have another horse in the race, to see that the Pope hasn’t supported their choice. I am not unsympathetic, but at some point, you have to reconcile to reality, and the teaching of the Church.
Knowing about the issue does tend to give you a better understanding, yes. If you did what the Pope did (find out about the issues) it would be much easier for you to accept the facts.
Nope. Never did that.
Nonsense. You’ll notice that no scientist says that science disproves God. Not even Dawkins will say that. It’s time to put that kind of paranoia aside. Trust that the Pope is right when he says that truth cannot contradict truth.
“Atheistic science” is an oxymoron. As the Pope says, when anyone tries to use science to deny God, they have left the proper place of science.