The Vatican dismisses creationism? (ritual, evolution, genesis, myth, atheist)

[JMoum04]

Originally Posted by michel

Does that mean that you believe that atheists have no conscience ?

No, because even atheists exercise virtues, so of course they have a conscience.

[Random]

Be sure, those clever dudes and dudettes @ the Vatican are testing the waters for public reaction to an avowed acceptance of THEIR form of evolution.

After all, if science proves the utter miracle of Abiogenesis somehow, we can all rest easy about GOD.

It's all so wishy-washy, the naturalistic explanation for life concerning the origin of life, isn't it? I mean one scientist espouses the classic modality of Random mutation then another says evolution is anything but random!

I think they don't really know, that's what I think. There really agnostics: they just don't know for sure.

But IF anyone knows the real truth of all of this, it's the willy sharks in robes @ Pope central. Believe it!

[Fluffy]

I mean one scientist espouses the classic modality of Random mutation then another says evolution is anything but random!

Thats really interesting. Are you sure that the first scientist was not using "random mutation" to mean "without purpose" to counteract the creationist accusation that evolution moves towards a particular goal whereas the second scientist was arguing that evolution is not random because all these mutations are, afterall, caused and allowed to flourish through various environmental pressures?

I often say that evolution is random in one thread but that it is not in another but I'm actually referring to very specific yet seperate ideas.

Regardless, surely the views of the Vatican astronomer should not be said to be the views of the Vatican?

[Random]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Thats really interesting. Are you sure that the first scientist was not using "random mutation" to mean "without purpose" to counteract the creationist accusation that evolution moves towards a particular goal whereas the second scientist was arguing that evolution is not random because all these mutations are, afterall, caused and allowed to flourish through various environmental pressures? I often say that evolution is random in one thread but that it is not in another but I'm actually referring to very specific yet seperate ideas.

Actually Fluffy, I was talking about say, the difference between what one would read in Wikipedia (all natually occuring evolutionary processes are necessarily uncaused and have none of the characteristics of intent or design: therefore being Random for all purposes), yet then, that smarmy smart guy Richard Dawkins opines that the most common misconception people have of Evolution is that it is a random process!!

It's like "Arrgh! Get your story straight, will you?!", know what I mean?

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Regardless, surely the views of the Vatican astronomer should not be said to be the views of the Vatican

No, but I would suggest that if said astronomer put it to the power-players in Pope central (ie. The Jesuits) that it might be a good idea to test out public reaction to a Papal acceptance of Evolution, he might be given the go-ahead to say what he said. What do you think?

[lunamoth]

Random mutation refers to the observation that changes in DNA base pair sequences happens randomly due to a combination of DNA damage and errors made during DNA replication. The mutations are randomly generated.

But the process of evolution is not random because there is a selective pressue (from the environment) to keep mutations that are beneficial to the organism.

[Fluffy]

Actually Fluffy, I was talking about say, the difference between what one would read in Wikipedia (all natually occuring evolutionary processes are necessarily uncaused and have none of the characteristics of intent or design: therefore being Random for all purposes), yet then, that smarmy smart guy Richard Dawkins opines that the most common misconception people have of Evolution is that it is a random process!!

It's like "Arrgh! Get your story straight, will you?!", know what I mean?

Hehe yeah I know what you mean. Despite Dawkins many failings, he does know evolution like the back of his hand so given the choice, I'd go with whatever he meant. I just think it is an issue that lacks in clarity anyway due to linguistic inaccuracy but there may very well be disagreement in the scientific community on top of that. I, being largely unaware of the scientific community, would have no idea .

No, but I would suggest that if said astronomer put it to the power-players in Pope central (ie. The Jesuits) that it might be a good idea to test out public reaction to a Papal acceptance of Evolution, he might be given the go-ahead to say what he said. What do you think?

Ooo possibly. I'm not entirely sure how much these things are allowed to come out but you would think they would be fairly careful with what they say (although obviously the Pope's recent comments were not careful enough). It does seem like the perfect way to do it and then if there is massive outcry (which there won't be), the rest of the Vatican could simply ignore the comments or condemn them.

[Random]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Random mutation refers to the observation that changes in DNA base pair sequences happens randomly due to a combination of DNA damage and errors made during DNA replication. The mutations are randomly generated.

But the process of evolution is not random because there is a selective pressue (from the environment) to keep mutations that are beneficial to the organism.

Yes, I am familiar with that, I was more referring to the public perception of what is being sold propaganda wise by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. But the use of the word "random" in that context is as skewed as its use to refer to evolution as a whole.

AS I've said before, randomness means the absence of equation and is therefore not possible in a deterministic cosmos which can be described using the language of mathematics.

It would be like saying everything is pi.

Defining random as "uncaused" is logical, but not available to science if they are determined that a form of "selection" goes on.

Anyway, I digress from the OP topic. The Vatican knows, be sure of it. They're smart too, like the scientists.

[KPereira]

This was on CBC's Quirks and Quarks and we were listening to it in Science class a week ago. What Brother Guy is trying to get across is that Science and Religion walk hand in hand. The Bible requires interpretation. We can't take it word for word. For example, the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' could mean do not murder anyone, do not kill their Spirit (i.e insulting, putting-down), or do not undermine another creation. Well...which is it? One or all 3? Maybe there are more interpretations to that.

The Creation Story does not make sense scientifically. I like to think of it this way. The Earth is a mechanical device. Science explains how it works, but Religion tells us who made it and how to use it. With only Religion, we are left wondering how everything works. With only Science, we have no morals...no ethics. If science is prepared to slaughter potential life to do some experiments, I pray that Religion becomes a bigger part in the world.

We need both together. The problems occur when Religion and Science try to discredit each other. No, Catholics are not denying the Creation story, but are saying that it is open to interpretation. Long gone are the days when we would take the Bible word for word because Science couldn't explain. Now, we are in an era of great scientific advancements where people believe that Science created the world, not God. People are more impressed with a space shuttle then the God who made the Universe. Science is explaining more and more of the world and people are abandoning Religion because they believe it archaic and a collection of fairy tales. Has Science disproved Religion? I don't think so. Science has just explained more of what is happening around us.

[chlotilde]

just a few quick comments...

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Are there any Catholics around that would care to comment? Maybe?

Pagan stems from a Latin word meaning rustic/villager and is/was a word used to describe those who didn't believe or practice in the Christian God.

that they're implying that paganism is inferior to Christianity.

Well, from a Catholic POV, wouldn't that make sense? If one thought being Pagan was religiously superior,then why would s/he remain Christian?

science needing a conscience from religion. <snip> Whatever conscience there is in scientists, is readlly based on humanitarian principles.

Well, from my perspective here, you just agreed with Brother C. You've just stated that the religion is "humanitarian principles".



chlo