www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design

Gordo,

Is that really the description of the book? If so, while it sounds like it might be interesting (in the sense of an entertaining read), the unfortunate fact is that it represents one great, big logical fallacy. It is no argument against Darwinism to say that some Darwinists became relativists or advocated horrendous and racist ideas; that is an argument against persons (i.e., ad hominem, against the man) rather than against a system of ideas, and therefore leaves the system of ideas largely untouched. Analogously, it would be as if someone in the 18th century of America argued that democracy is wrong because some democrats held slaves. Hopefully there is more to the book than that.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Jason,

I think if you read it you will find that it demonstrates a very clear connection between darwinist theories and their manifestation in some of the social movements in the early part of the 20th century. The author also documents the comments of some of Darwin's contemporaries who saw in his theories cause for grave social/moral concern (especially the concept of natural selection, which was emphasized quite extensively in Hitler's writings and speeches) and which had little to do with whether or not God created the world in seven 24 hour periods!

While I may not do justice to the author's argument, I certainly did not find it to be merely one long ($53) ad hominem attack.

I'd be curious about your opinion after you read it. I thought it was very enlightening.

Gordo

Gordo,

Thanks for your additional comments. I would like to read the book if I get the chance, but unfortunately right now I am a poor graduate student who likely will not find the time to read it or the money to buy it any time soon. However, in response to what you've said I should mitigate my previous comments: it is possible to make a decent argument by pointing out that there are "seeds" in a system of thought which do tend to lead toward a certain conclusion. If the author establishes this point firmly enough, there may be something of merit to it.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

But some parties are more God's party than others! :p

And I'm still waiting for the names of those racist Dems who went Republican, Brian!

Gordo [/QB][/QUOTE]


Gordo,

One can start with Mr Thurmond himself formerly of the disgraceful Dixiecrats and continue on with Mr Lott his "disciple". I can't believe that you have never heard of the "Southern Strategy" or read any political history of the Civil Rights movement????

Nice paraphrase of George Orwell above but it doesn't suffice

You caught me! I've read Animal Farm at least 7 times since I first encountered it in Jr. High. It is one of my favorite stories! (That and "Lord of the Flies"...)

Titles - do you have any to recommend? Even though I grew up in the South, I never heard about the "Southern strategy". (Perhaps due to the "frog in the boiling water" effect...) :p

Gordo

One can also start with Robert Byrd, who was a former member of the KKK and who once hold very violent racist views.

But just as Mr. Byrd realized his mistakes so, too, did Mr. Thurmond. Both individuals acknowledged the error of their ways and changed course. Since that time both individuals did much to fight racism, Mr. Byrd within the spirit of his very liberal political beliefs and Mr. Thurmond within the spirit of his very conservative political beliefs. If we are to forgive one then we must also forgive the other.

If we are honest about history we really can�t put a label of �racist� on either party (during the time of civil rights). Or, if we must, we must apply it to both. While the Democrats held majorities in both houses they didn�t have the votes to pass the civil rights legislation (there were many racists in the Democrat Party of that day). It took a number of Republicans and Democrats joining together to pass that legislation. Courageous members of both parties need our thanks.

Trent Lott made a kind gesture at an old man�s birthday (Thurmond�s 100th) by telling him he would have made a good president. No one was offended by this for three whole days until Senate Democrats came up with the idea that they could get political mileage out of the comment and portray Lott as a racist.

A few months later Chris Dodd made an almost identical comment about Byrd�s past at an event honoring Byrd, but it was ignored by the media (which favors Democrats).

In truth both sets of comments were a simple, kind remark to someone.

If we say that the Apostle Paul served the Lord well surely we cannot conclude that such service must be considered to equate only to the days when Paul was persecuting Christians. No, we think of the entirety of his life; how he saw that his persecution of Christians was wrong; how he found the Light; the entirety of his life. It seems to me that is how Lott thought when complimenting Thurmond and how Dodd thought when complimenting Byrd.

--

Regarding the topic of this thread, I noted that the article linked in the first post includes a quote from the Holy Father using the term �intelligent project�. There was an article in my local paper today which quoted the Holy Father referring to an �intelligent designer�.

Actually Father Coyne as quoted in this article makes a very simple remark that has absolutely nothing to do with any purported conflation of "Intelligent Design" with "fundamental Biblical Genesis literalis[m]". The latter idea is not only non-scientific it is flat out contradicted by science. "Intelligent Design", however, as Father points out, is simply not science - as science is understood by its contemporary practitioners. This perspective should not be confused as in any way implying that one cannot affirm a belief in a Creator God while at the same time being a good scientist - a very silly idea, indeed, as it is amply contradicted in the religious lives of scientists - past or present. It does however mean that supernatural explanations of natural phenomena are inherently not scientfic explanations. And as the good Father says, "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

The theory of evolution has many, many holes in it. Even Stephen Jay Gould admitted that gradual changes in morphology cannot be found in the fossil record and that he proposed a new theory called punctuated equlibrium. This theory holds that all new forms of life just "appeared" out of nowhere. In the Oparin-Miller-Urey hypothesis somehow lightning, water and mud got together and decided to make amino acids which decided to make proteins which decided to make prions etc...(I thought that spontaneous generation was debunked by Pasteur)
If survival of the fittest is valid why is there so much diversity in the world? If humans are the apex of evolution, why isn't everything human? If you breed a donkey and a horse you get a mule; if you breed a lion and a tiger you get a tigon or a liger, all of these are sterile after their births. How can a sterile being reproduce? (Maybe the aliens genetically altered everything ) What about the platypus?

Most people expect religious leaders to lie. I don't know why people think that scientists aren't above lying. People think that science and scientists always have our best interests in mind. What about the "Piltdown Man" (a hoax,) thalidomide (causes monstrous birth defects,) vioxx and bextra (death,) and that medical error is the third leading cause of death in the USA.
Besides 90-95% of "scientists" are atheists.
Let's have more faith in our faith
"In the beginning..."

Uh, Gordo, wasn't Strom Thurmond a Democrat at one time?
-D

Thanks, Daniel.

Actually, Brian mentioned his name above.

Gordo

That is a disgusting lie, Administrator. I ask you, just as you ask many others, to withdraw such an offensive and blatantly false and unfair statement.

Logos Teen

Teen,

It is so true; the Admin was 100% dead on. The media here should be arrested for sedition.

I have a suggestion. Tune into Michael Savage sometime. He's usually on between 6-10pn Eastern Time. You will here a very interesting perspective on the blatant, liberal, anti-life, anti-American, anti-Christian, pro-Islam, Socialist media.

-uc

Good Lord. Michael Savage?! :rolleyes: The worst of the worst.
"Savage" is of course a radio name; his real name is "Horowitz" [or something like that], a New York Jew who had a career in Berkeley in the herbal health sphere before discovering how much money he could make peddling right wing vitriol.
One of the few New Age wackos to transmutate into Right Wing wackos with nary a pause...
Please. Let us keep the conversation serious.
-Daniel

Gordo- Sorry, I missed page 2 of this thread; I was responding to page 1 [I have been out of town since Friday morning and skimmed the posts}.
-D

And -uc, if your intention was to assimilate the administrator's thinking to that of Mr. Savage, then ISTM that an apology is in order.