Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

[jdnation]

That was interesting. Here’s some of what they’re saying:

Among the issues to be discussed is the relationship between faith and science, the insufficiencies of neo-Darwinist theory, and the **possibility **of simultaneously believing in both the Catholic faith and in the theory of the evolution of the species.

“The motivation for our congress is above all to understand what this quest consists of; and here we face a paradigm [paradox?] because it seems clear to us that the theory of evolution is itself a theory in evolution.”

The Church should also make itself open to creationism. If it is only Portestants that are making efforts with this powerful message that God is the Creator of the world and His Word is trustworthy we will stand to lose. Not that numbers are more important than truth, but if peoples lives can literally change and their faith be more uplifted through this message then surely it deserves consideration. After all, it’s not like it is contrary to what the Church originally held to and believed in and taught several years ago since the time of Christ. The need to believe in macro-evolution and accept it fully is simply intimidation from its atheist proponents who have nothing but a vocal consensus of scientists and the mainstream media under them.

People must understand that for them there is more at stake here than simply a matter of science. Evolution is now a philosophy, a mainstream religion. If macro-evolution were to fall to Creationists and suddenly the Bible could be taken seriously, then other institutions are also at risk. Abortion proponents, population control and family planning, Homosexual and other sexual and anti-marriage movements, Euthanasia, entire governments and many other immoral institutions in the world also have their hands in this area. If society were to shift from doubt and open interpretations of Christianity to something more affirmative, then their entire system will collapse. So this entire debate over science, our schools and institutions isn’t of importance just to scientists, but institutions, governments and the consciences of every human being on this planet. There is a LOT more at stake in this debate than many would ever realize! Evolutionary beliefs have become the foundational belief of society and over the years we’ve begun to show it. So you can bet that what is happening here has ramifications for everybody!

 

[edwest2]

To JR and jdnation -

Both of you have hit the nail on the head. Until Darwin’s book, most scientists were unapologetically Christian. Then the anti-theists who were wielding a club, so to speak, were given a machine-gun. Here was a way to replace God with science! Here was the mind of man overcoming belief! Or to quote evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould: “I don’t want to believe, I want to know!”

And there is nothing wrong with knowing, but when it becomes the subject of a Universal Acceptance Campaign, when it becomes the foundation for forced sterilization and eugenics and the killing of those deemed by science to be inferior or subhuman peoples, we have to ask ourselves - are these just facts and observations? The answer is no.

Scientist PZ Myers articulates how science and atheism are directly linked. With glee, he outlines how atheists, scientific atheists, will flex their muscles in society. And all one needs to do is go to some internet forums for atheists, brights, free thinkers and similar, and read (though I caution those recently converted to the faith): science will save us, science is the way and the truth, science will make us like gods!

The “peer pressure” we experience here to ‘just say yes’ to evolution is part of this plan. However, we need to show that even if all religious belief disappeared tomorrow, a utopia would not be the result. I don’t think anyone would blame the recent global financial collapse and problems on Wall Street on religion. Did religion make them do it? No.

I think the part of Humani Generis that people don’t want to read is that it stresses looking at evolutionary theory from the standpoint of evidence for and evidence against, and that prudent, careful assessments and judgements must be made. Prudent and careful are not words I would use to describe many posts on the subject of evolution.

In conclusion, the obsessive posting about supposedly self-evident and factual information is really a campaign to get as many of us to yes as quickly as possible.

Finally, it is a grave offense to Biblical scholarship when those who post here about science make claims about the Bible. Humani Generis points out the same thing. As if prior to this time, the Bible had not been examined by truly great and learned men who were also led by the Holy Spirit of God. That people make it sound like some other meaning is yet to be found, but these same people are not theologians. So they say: OK, I went through your Bible book and you gotta throw out a literal reading of Genesis, and you gotta throw out Noah’s Ark - sorry, babe, no evidence for a global flood - and you’ve gotta change this and you gotta change that. Oh, and a lot of stuff you believe is symbolic – symbolically symbolic.

Uh huh. The Pope has been doing and saying everything correctly. Even Cardinal Schoenborn has written about the resistence he gets when trying to discuss flaws or problems with the theory. This isn’t about promoting science, my brothers and sisters in Christ, this is about promoting scientific atheism. No one will believe anything anymore, only facts will rule us. The fly in the ointment is that these facts will be under the control of fallible and sinful men who believe this life is all there is and looking out for number one is job one, or those others they judge worthy to be part of their inner circle.

The Pope gets this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

I was not always a creationist. I too was a Theistic Evolutionist and easily dismissed creationism as fundamentalist stupidity that did nothing but prevent people from believing in Christ by making religious people look like unscientific peons and I am guilty of many a slanderous attack upon them.

jd - you have much courage to make the statement above, and I’m sure there are many here who respect you greatly for doing it.

I understand Pope John Paul II and now Benedict XVI’s reasons for continuing to discuss evolution. But at the same time I think they should look into the opposing side and encourage Catholics to explore that option just as they allow for with concern to evolution. In time we’ll clearly see what fruits and philosophies each one will bear, though I’d argue that Social Darwinism and other philosophies that use evolution as their strict foundation have already shown the horrors that they are capable. It was these very institutions that the Church fought in the past, including John Paul himself.

I’ve posted the quote below many times on these forums. We are not required to believe in evolution, although we can - assuming that the philosophy behind that particular type of evolution does not deny God.

Quote directly from the US Catholic Catechism for Adults - page 60 (2007):

“Christian faith does not require the acceptance of any particular theory of evolution, nor does it forbid it, provided that the particular theory is not strictly materialistic and does not deny what is essential to the spiritual essence of the human person, namely that God creates each human soul directly to share immortal life with him.”

This quite clearly states that:

1. Catholics are free to reject any and all forms of evolution.
2. Catholics are forbidden to accept theories of evolution which are strictly materialistic, etc. (as described above).
3. Catholics may accept forms of evolution which are not forbidden, as above.

There are some here (not you of course) who want to make others think that the Church and/or Pope has given a blanket endorsement of “Evolution”, in the most general sense and not restricted as above. We need to continue to speak the truth.

And I agree that research into alternatives should proceed.

 

[gjbrunning]

Bravo, Jdnation. Your post 202 hits the nail on the head,.

The reason is pretty much simple. The Church has barred creationists and ID advocates from the discussion because it’s currently being led by men who have an a-priori accepted belief in macro-evolution and compromised it with our faith because plenty of people still suffer under the delusion that there is actual evidence that macro-evoluion is true. There isn’t any. Macro-evolution isn’t scientific at all, it’s no more scientific than Biblical creationism or ID. Except Creationism better accounts for the world than evolution ever could. It all depends on what your starting philosophy is and you interpret scientific evidence to fit your worldview. Macro-evolution is simply an naturalistic philosophy disguised as science. A closer look at Evolutionary principles and beliefs show that they too rely on thigns just as miraculous and unexplainable to justify themselves. But because they ignore God and the ‘supernatural’ they’re convinced they’re somehow more ‘scientific.’

 

[wildleafblower]

Obviously, there seems to be people still left in the world that don’t even know about macroevolution therefore just shoot it down. From TalkOrigins Archive:

Macroevolution
Its Definition, Philosophy and History. Please read the entire document but here is a snippet from it:
“Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology.”
talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

To be read in conjunction with Douglas Theobald’s 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. The Scientific Case for Common Descent
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I will also mention that Evolution is taught in a science class so please let’s not forget the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT (P.L. 107-110), Participation of private school students and teachers by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Here’s a snippet from that document which should be read in it’s entirety:

I N T R O D U C T I O N
This brochure provides a brief description of the education programs authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) that allow for the equitable participation of private and religious school students and teachers. The Act, which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), contains ten parts, or “titles,” most of which outline the goals and purposes, funding formulas, and other details of the various educational programs authorized in each title of the Act. The chart at the end of this brochure describes where former ESEA title programs have been relocated within the ten titles of NCLBA.

The General Provisions outlined in Title IX of the Act describe provisions that govern most of the preceding titles. Sections 9501-9506 of Title IX contain “Uniform Provisions” specifically affecting
private and religious school students and teachers. Sections 9501-504 include a list of programs in which private and religious school students and teachers are eligible to participate, as well as the general requirements regarding private and religious school participation in those programs. . .

Table of Contents

Title II Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers
and Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Part A: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund . . . 13
Part B: Math and Science Partnerships . . . . . 14

14 Part B: Math and Science Partnerships
FY02 appropriation $12,500,000 (New program)
ACTIVITIES
Grants are provided through the Part B Math and Science Partnerships program to support partnerships that provide professional development programs designed to improve the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science. Partnerships must include a State, an institution of higher education (IHE), and a high-need LEA, and may also include other entities, such as additional LEAs, IHEs, public and private orgainizations, and businesses. Teachers in private schools located in LEAs participating in these partnerships, regardless of the entity that receives the grant and whether or not the private schools is a member of the partnership, must be offered equitable participation, including consultation during the design, development, and implementation of the program to ensure it meets the needs of the private school students, as required in the Uniform Provisions.

Programs supported through the partnerships may include summer institutes for mathematics and science teachers with school year follow-up sessions; training in curriculum development and increased subject matter knowledge; opportunities for collaboration with working mathematicians, scientists, and engineers; and stipends or scholarships to obtain alternative certification or advanced course work. . . ."
usccb.org/education/fedasst/nclba3.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/education/fedasst/nclba3.pdf
There’s more to be explored about Education on the USCCB’s website. Every Catholic teenager that I know in a Catholic School or public High School is taught biology.

I’ll have to return later since there appears to be members who have never taken a science class! Please let’s remember that the Bible isn’t a SCIENCE BOOK!

 

[Wirraway]

… Evolution is comprised of two sets. Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution. Micro-Evolution that deals with nature changing and growing and diversifying through natural selection on a daily basis is an observable and proven fact. It is scientific truth…

that’s actually a creationist strawman.

 

[edwest2]

Obviously, there seems to be people still left in the world that don’t even know about macroevolution therefore just shoot it down. From TalkOrigins Archive:

Macroevolution
Its Definition, Philosophy and History. Please read the entire document but here is a snippet from it:
“Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology.”
talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

To be read in conjunction with Douglas Theobald’s 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. The Scientific Case for Common Descent
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I will also mention that Evolution is taught in a science class so please let’s not forget the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT (P.L. 107-110), Participation of private school students and teachers by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Here’s a snippet from that document which should be read in it’s entirety:

I N T R O D U C T I O N
This brochure provides a brief description of the education programs authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) that allow for the equitable participation of private and religious school students and teachers. The Act, which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), contains ten parts, or “titles,” most of which outline the goals and purposes, funding formulas, and other details of the various educational programs authorized in each title of the Act. The chart at the end of this brochure describes where former ESEA title programs have been relocated within the ten titles of NCLBA.

The General Provisions outlined in Title IX of the Act describe provisions that govern most of the preceding titles. Sections 9501-9506 of Title IX contain “Uniform Provisions” specifically affecting
private and religious school students and teachers. Sections 9501-504 include a list of programs in which private and religious school students and teachers are eligible to participate, as well as the general requirements regarding private and religious school participation in those programs. . .

Table of Contents

Title II Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers
and Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Part A: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund . . . 13
Part B: Math and Science Partnerships . . . . . 14

14 Part B: Math and Science Partnerships
FY02 appropriation $12,500,000 (New program)
ACTIVITIES
Grants are provided through the Part B Math and Science Partnerships program to support partnerships that provide professional development programs designed to improve the academic achievement of students in mathematics and science. Partnerships must include a State, an institution of higher education (IHE), and a high-need LEA, and may also include other entities, such as additional LEAs, IHEs, public and private orgainizations, and businesses. Teachers in private schools located in LEAs participating in these partnerships, regardless of the entity that receives the grant and whether or not the private schools is a member of the partnership, must be offered equitable participation, including consultation during the design, development, and implementation of the program to ensure it meets the needs of the private school students, as required in the Uniform Provisions.

Programs supported through the partnerships may include summer institutes for mathematics and science teachers with school year follow-up sessions; training in curriculum development and increased subject matter knowledge; opportunities for collaboration with working mathematicians, scientists, and engineers; and stipends or scholarships to obtain alternative certification or advanced course work. . . ."
usccb.org/education/fedasst/nclba3.pdf
http://www.usccb.org/education/fedasst/nclba3.pdf
There’s more to be explored about Education on the USCCB’s website. Every Catholic teenager that I know in a Catholic School or public High School is taught biology.

I’ll have to return later since there appears to be members who have never taken a science class! Please let’s remember that the Bible isn’t a SCIENCE BOOK!

The Bible isn’t a science book? Then what is it? Does it contain actual history? Yes or no?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

that’s actually a creationist strawman.

No straw was used in making that statement. Your reply is uninformative.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Wirraway]

No straw was used in making that statement. Your reply is uninformative.

Peace,
Ed

you’re a sharp guy, ed. I’m just going to have to stop trying to slip one by on your watch.

 

[StAnastasia]

I understand Pope John Paul II and now Benedict XVI’s reasons for continuing to discuss evolution. But at the same time I think they should look into the opposing side and encourage Catholics to explore that option just as they allow for with concern to evolution.

What option is that? “Creationism” in the sense you mean it – namely anti-evolution, young earth belief – has contributed absolutely nothing to scientific knowledge. The Churchmen in Rome are wise enough to see it, and therefore have excluded it from the table. It would make as much sense to invite astrologers to address an astronomy convention at the Vatican, or alchemists to speak at a chemistry congress.

StAnastasia

 

[redneck22]

What option is that? “Creationism” in the sense you mean it – namely anti-evolution, young earth belief – has contributed absolutely nothing to scientific knowledge. The Churchmen in Rome are wise enough to see it, and therefore have excluded it from the table. It would make as much sense to invite astrologers to address an astronomy convention at the Vatican, or alchemists to speak at a chemistry congress.

StAnastasia

The list of 750 to 800 scientists here include astronomers and chemists, maybe some of them should be invited, if the conference is looking at making a “balanced” conclusion.

Scientists Dissent from Darwinism

 

[gjbrunning]

Thanks redneck 22. Post 231 The list is impressive. I hope everyone reads it to be convinced that all “scientists” are not taken in by evolution. I knew the list existed but thanks to you I now have it in hand.

 

[Wirraway]

Thanks redneck 22. Post 231 The list is impressive. I hope everyone reads it to be convinced that all “scientists” are not taken in by evolution. I knew the list existed but thanks to you I now have it in hand.

I’m opposed to gravity and the letter “Q”. I’d like an invite to the vatican’s party.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m opposed to gravity and the letter “Q”. I’d like an invite to the vatican’s party.

I think the stars determine everbody’s moral choices. I demand to be invited to the Vatican’s gatherings on moral theology!

 

[jdnation]

What option is that? “Creationism” in the sense you mean it – namely anti-evolution, young earth belief – has contributed absolutely nothing to scientific knowledge. The Churchmen in Rome are wise enough to see it, and therefore have excluded it from the table. It would make as much sense to invite astrologers to address an astronomy convention at the Vatican, or alchemists to speak at a chemistry congress.

StAnastasia

And what specifically has belief in macro evolution (that simple celled organisms can become thinking logical human beings) contributed to science? How can it contribute anything when evolutionists themselves haven’t got their story straight and are constantly reworking much of what they’ve said in the past? What scientific laws have we learned from macro-evolution that are useful today? Remember that I’m specifically refering to evolution at the macro-level. NOT the micro level which no creationists have a problem with and have been studying and explaining before Charles Darwin and others. Isaac Newton and plenty of other scientists in the past were creationists and they are some of the greatest scientists who ever lived. Belief in a logical God, who never changes and upholds everything provided a great starting point for science because it meant that the universe was not chaotic but operated on fixed laws and a logical framework. Natural selection is a creationist concept to describe the changes and variability amongst groups and families of living things.

Both Creationism and Macro-Evolution deal with topics in the unobserved past that cannot be reproduced, experimented with or tested. They are ‘Origins-Science’ that rely on philosophy and speculation without data that have nothing to do with real ‘operational science’ being done today in medecine, technology, etc. where we can conduct, observe, experiment and test and witness things now in the present. Neither can contribute anything to operational science because they deal with times and conditions that are not observable today. All each does is make assumptions based on real empirical science and try to fit that into their belief system. This is not science, it is simply a battle of worldviews, a framework where evidence is interpreted to suit the dogmas, but the dogmas are not affected by the evidence. They cannot change because they are both religious beliefs. And both cannot be proven. Each side brings their preconceived beliefs to the table and then spends the time trying to justify their beliefs. In that sense they are both on equal footing.

Evolutionists believe in dogmas that the world and conditions we observe today has always been in this state, there is this assumed constancy with small changes over long periods of time, that naturalist and materialist thought is the only reality to conduct science under. They make assumptions about a past that nobody has witnessed because they weren’t there. Creationists believe that science should be conducted under the framework of God’s revealed truth, because God was there and He made the universe and tells us in few details precisely what He did, how long in what order. Not just from Genesis but from references to creation throughout the Bible that affirm Genesis’ foundational value. The world was not always the way it is today when God finished creating it. Also there was a worldwide flood which would completely change and alter the landscape with large significant changes over shorter periods of time due to such tulmultous activity. The result is that with such biases in mind, both a creationist and an evolutionist can examine the same rock, the same fossil and the same evidence and come up with different conclusions because they suit it to fit their initial religious beliefs about how the world began and how it works. It is simply two competing religions. And evolution has always been a belief so vague and all encompassing that it is not just limited to biology, archaeology and astronomy, but is a philosophical foundation for sociology as well and is just as powerful as an religion for telling us where we come from, what we are and what our purpose in life is. As for its worth to science the foundational unproven dogmas of evolutionists are never challenged, never contradicted and never changed. They are infalliably pronounced to be the unquestioned truth and all evidence must be explained according to evolution or explained away if it is troublesome. The philosophy is always assumed to be right. It is simply circular reasoning. Anyone who seeks to explain it under an opposing model is branded a heretic.

contd>

 

[jdnation]

contd>

Any theory so wide that it can supposedly account for absolutely anything and everything is no good at all for any scientific conduct because it is so ready with making up explanations to make any evidence fit within its framework that it’s useless for gaining any sort of insight at all. All they are doing is building a house on loose sand and continuing to add rooms in any old fashion anywhere at all, higher and higher into the sky on a whim insisting everything can be supported without bothering to even make sure the architecture at the bottom, on the foundational pillars and walls is capable of supporting them at all. There is not even a blueprint to make sure they could’ve ever got it right in the first place and they have assumed it is fine and ceased bothering to even look for it anymore and are selling these rooms to you and everyone else insisting everything is fine and you may even attempt to nail your crucifix on the wall if you’re into that sort of thing…

The only way to distinguish which of the two religions are right is to see what each is saying and see who is more consistent with what we observe around us. And I will argue that creationism has a far better reputation at that and recognizes what can be scientifically verified and what cannot. Creationists know where science ends and belief and suppositions begin. Evolutionists still have a hard time wrapping their minds around this concept and accuse creationists for being things they hypocritically are as well, except they don’t even realize it, or refuse to, or in many cases as films like ‘Expelled’ reveal about Richard Dawkins and other atheists, they actually do realize it and celebrate it, but the general public is better off not considering that as it would expose them and show macro-evolution for what it really is… just a competing religion about where we come from and what the world around us really means and what and who is responsible for it and who can then make the rules… It would make as much sense as the Church inviting hardline Muslims and Hindus to inform and change our long standing beliefs and traditions in our religion according to their thoughts so as to better get us in line with their thinking. We must change our beliefs to suit theirs… Only us… End of discussion.

The Churchmen in Rome are not wise in this regard. They are either unaware of what macro-evolution is or are unaware of how it ultimately undermines the value of certain doctrines like marriage, sin, death, the value of life and ultimately the very Cross of Christ and our redemption and thus undermining the credibility of the Christian faith as a whole. In most cases, like the great majority of people, they are intimidated by evolution’s proponents. Also the belief in evolution through the media and forced indoctrination in schools because we don’t like religion in our schools and therefore a secular ‘neutral’ belief must be substituted and adhered to and taught dogmatically without ‘religious’ opposition is now so widespread and so permeated it has become ‘common knowledge.’ And opposition to it are painted as backwards fundamentalist neanderthals who are crazy, emotional, brainwashed charletons who chastize honest truth seeking scientists just like what that ‘evil Catholic Church and their Inquisition did to Galileo. Because everyone knows that story is true…’

The Church knows that by suddenly supporting the less popular belief in creation long thought to have been a disproven fairy tale, that they will invite the media and majority consensus’ fury and scathing remarks (which will be nothing but crude verbosity and the trumpeting of secular party lines and repetition of evidence for evolution that creationists have long since discredited and addressed) and thus risk losing many followers. Any definite declaration on which one is the correct and official view would even lead to a large schism. So even if the Churchmen of Rome were sympathetic to creationism they’d have no choice but to thread carefully because for far too long has the world been submersed in evolutionary thinking throughout daily life that it has become assumed truth because “the majority of scientists have said and been saying so and they’re so many and so much smarter than we are because they went to university that they must be right…” But basically it’s evolutionist media saying that only evolutionists are real scientists, and all scientists agree on evolution, which basically boils down to evolutionists are saying that evolution is right… From this point on it’s simply a religious war fought through the media and the education system and the courts, but actual operational science and scientific conduct has long left the building.

 

[edwest2]

Your assertions primarily consist of speculation about results that have not been announced and a lack of knowledge of previous statements by the Church.

In Human Persons Created in the Image of God, an evolutionary process without divine providence simply cannot exist.

From Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn, regarding the Pope being a satisfied evolutionist, we find out it is not true.

Catholics are not allowed to believe in textbook evolution where random mutation and natural selection alone gave rise to the life we see around us. That from the Library on this site.

The Church intimidated? By who? Heretics? That has always been the ongoing problem. However, the Church does need to respond to new heretical statements and movements, such as the recent increase in publications promoting scientific atheism, like The God Delusion, statements by scientist Sam Harris, and theatrical stunts by scientist PZ Myers who decided to put a rusty nail through a eucharistic host and throw it into the trash.

Galileo? He was so impressed with his theory, he started running around and calling it a fact without enough information to do so. Even the scientists of his day were skeptical. He caused the conflict with the Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think the stars determine everbody’s moral choices. I demand to be invited to the Vatican’s gatherings on moral theology!

I’m working on turning lead into gold. I want a position on the Vatican science panel.

 

[StAnastasia]

The Bible isn’t a science book? Then what is it? Does it contain actual history? Yes or no?Peace,
Ed

The Bible is not a science book, and yes, it does contain some actual history.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

However, the Church does need to respond to new heretical statements and movements, such as the recent increase in publications promoting scientific atheism, like The God Delusion, statements by scientist Sam Harris, and theatrical stunts by scientist PZ Myers who decided to put a rusty nail through a eucharistic host and throw it into the trash.Peace,
Ed

That’s why the Church is not inviting extremists from either side: neither the evangelical atheists or the anti-science Iders and YECs are being dignified with a place at the table of scholarly discussion.

God bless,
StAnastasia