Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer

i don't think the average creationist will care: Catholocism is considered a fallen, degraded form of Christianity. My time in fundamentalism was spend getting earfuls about how evil catholics are and how poorly they represent the christian ideal. Really sad.

On the other hand, Brother Consolmagno is quite right: while the Old Churches have all moved on to the belief in the Great Clockmaker: a supernatural god which made a purely natural universe, and set it in motion, with rules that can be analyzed, predicted, and quantified. American evangelicals, on the other hand, have still kept to the belief of an interventionist God, one who's always dabbling, and has always dabbled. Sad thing is, I think the evangelical interpretation of the biblical Elohim is the more accurate one.

Brother Consolmagno

"Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance.

And lying to ignorant people is like throwing gas on a fire.

In that regard, Casey Luskin and his fabricatin' friends are akin to meth-addicted pyromaniacs.

Ouch.
It's a pity they don't try freebasing while fying in stormy weather...oh right they did that at Dover

Just noticed this

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3364&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage

"The mainstream science establishment and the courts tell us, in censorious tones that sometimes sound a bit desperate, that intelligent design is just a lot of fundamentalist cant. It's not," said Steven D. Smith, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego and author of Law's Quandary (Harvard University Press, 2004). "We've heard the Darwinist story, and we owe it to ourselves to hear the other side. Traipsing Into Evolution is that other side."

Actually, Perfusser Smith, we all heard "the other side" ad nauseum by virtue of the inane Discovery Institute propaganda program. "The other side" even got scientifically illiterate rubes like President Bush and John McCain to recite their script for the cameras.

Judge Jones heard "the other side", too. And he wrote all about it his decision.

You should read it sometime, Perfesser Smith. Then you're welcome to come here and talk about it and the whole world can learn that USD Law School -- like Boalt Hall -- employs some truly asinine bloviators who care more about stroking their own holier-than-thou egos than they do about teaching law.

Oh wait -- I forgot that your child friend Casey Luskin has advised you not to comment here.

Oops. Follow the leader, Perfesser Smith.

As an atheist, I think any religious faith is misplaced. However, any christian sect that's willing to stand up and denounce the idiocy that is creationism/ID deserves a round of applause in my book. It's about time reasonable people retook their faith from the extremists.

i don't think the average creationist will care: Catholocism is considered a fallen, degraded form of Christianity.

— Sounder

"And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do."

On what basis is the catholic church, or any other church, qualified to be our moral authority? Just because they say so?

I think their track record speaks for itself.

Father George V. Coyne, head of the Vatican Observatory has written;

"I have Catholic friends who tell me they pray that scientists will not find answers to certain questions so that they can continue to believe in God. In other words, their faith hangs on a degree of ignorance that allows God to come in to explain things. The Great God of the Gaps, as it were. It's the strangest mentality. God gave us brains, or rather he gave us a universe out of which our capacity to think and to self-reflect has come. We should use that capacity to its fullest."

I don't think the astronomer made his point, namely not that creationism is wrong -- the easy part -- but that creationism is pagan. There are several differences between the two concepts of a Christian and pagan God(s):

1. Monotheism vs. polytheism
2. Individual gods imminent in individual phenomena vs. one God imminent in the entire Universe
(this is what Brother Consolmagno is focusing on)
3. A transcendent God vs. a non-transcendent one
4. A God of order vs. chaos the most ancient of the Greek gods

Given the "god of the gaps" theology one could effectively argue that there are pagan elements but because it denies 4 rather than 2, namely God as the great cosmic hacker rather than truly a designer. The "designer" posited by intelligent design is more pagan than Christian. But, it goes too far to say "at the end of the day is a kind of paganism" because as we see above supernatural intervention in and of itself does not make the theology pagan.

Furthermore, I don't think the name calling is helpful. A better point could be made is that methodological naturalism can be rooted in Christian theology because both posit order in the Universe. The evidence found from that method lead us to conclusions that contradict young earth creationism, such as an old earth and descent with modification. This contradicts a specific, non-necessary, interpretation of the Bible, but this evidence in no way contradicts the Christian concept of God outlined above. Note: I understand what I had above is a description of a theistic God and is not unique to Christianity but Christianity does believe it also.

On what basis is the catholic church, or any other church, qualified to be our moral authority? Just because they say so? I think their track record speaks for itself.

Here is Paul Taylor's assessment of Consolmagno's mess:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0509pagans.asp

FL

Richard -

I think you are concentrating too much on Euro-Asia history, and ignoring other areas, like Egypt, for example

your entire list is countered by Ra, the sun god.

-monotheistic
-omniscient (even tho the sun god, the sun was considered the source of all things, and thus all encompasing)
-transcendent
-and DEFINTELY "designed" as a god of order.

well before the idea of a christian god existed, and perhaps one of the precursors.

There's other examples, but this one comes immediately to mind.

A better point could be made is that methodological naturalism can be rooted in Christian theology because both posit order in the Universe

And here is my own somewhat spicier analysis of the Consolmagno story, which I offered some time ago on another forum.

***********************

You know, folks, these Vatican astronomer types are employed in very privileged, very exciting positions of discovery, positions of potentially great service to God and their fellow Christians.

Yet some of them talk like they're moonlighting (I edited out the specific job description in the interest of ecumenical dialog) for Old Scratch and his boys.

That's totally messed up, amigos. And it's not a matter of science versus religion, but religion versus religion.

Pope Benedict simply needs to git himself some bug spray (preferably something the FDA was forced to ban) and remove some materialist leeches off the Christian payroll, starting with some of the folks manning the Vatican telescopes.

:::::

Now, this Conso guy is correct that science and religion need each other and vice versa; who in the Christian community would dare argue with that?

But as with Vatican astronomer George Coyne, you can see the late materialist SJ Gould's dead hand in this, turning Conso into just another materialist puppet.

Conso's supposed to be a Christian, but he's showing his butt and doing commercials for the religion of Materialism. Most unsanitary arrangement, mamacita!

For Conso, (as with Gould previously), science and religion co-existing in peace, automatically means Biblical religion getting thrown out the window, whenever the Bible makes a historical claim that doesn't match up with the demands of the materialist religion.

Such as the Biblical historical claim that God fully formed and populated the earth within one single normal Earth week of 7 normal 24-hour-based evenings and mornings.

Conso not only rejects that historical claim, but openly labels the Bible claim as "paganism". (A flatly ~~wrong~~ labeling, of course; see below).

:::::

Sure, that Genesis 7-day account would require multiple high-octane miracles literally happening all over the place.

But---and this is so mondo important--there's nothing within SCIENCE or REASON that eliminates that possibility of those miracles happening.

(In brief, Conso or RF Brady would have to rationally and/or scientifically rule out a theistic universe first, and ~nobody whatsoever~ has succeeded on that project).

Of course, there's nothing in the Bible that negates the possibility of miracles, either. So, Conso COULD at least ratinally defend the Biblical claim on that basis at least.

But noooooo, he refuses to. Why? Because to accept a miraculous 7-day creation as a historical factual event, is to publicly reject the unsupported non-scientific anti-theistic anti-supernaturalist faith-commitments of the religion of materialism, expressed so very well by Gould, Lewontin, etc. etc.
A scary proposition--if you're moonlighting for the wrong boss!

So THERE's the rub. Let's be clear here: Conso is NOT defending the necessity of science by denying Genesis's specific 7-day historical claim; for as I've shown, Conso could at least have claimed that God acted miraculously in history, and that nobody, no science, has ruled out miracles.

That argument would easily preserve and support his apparent concern about science and religion acknowledging that they need each other.

Instead, Conso is merely preaching the religion of Materialism as superior to the Bible. Selling Gould's and Dawkin's philosophical snake oil. (Without any rational or scientific support for doing so, I might add.)

Therefore Conso is effectively therefore pooping on his own alleged Christianity, in front of the media, just like his fellow pooper Fr. George Coyne.

:::::

You know, Conso could have just said "Hey, I don't believe the Genesis historical account because I am a materialist like Gould, and I agree with him that religious people must give up all supernatural historical interventions wherever they clash with materialism's historical claims."

But nope, that would be too honest (and probably force Benedict to trim the Vatican Payroll quick!)

So, this Conso fellow tries to criticize the Biblical historical account instead of criticizing his own materialist beliefs, accusing the Scriptural historical claim of being "paganism" and painting God as a "nature god."

Which is utterly, astonishingly incorrect.

:::::

You see, the Genesis historical account is special precisely because it DOESN'T go along with the creation myths of some other folks; it doesn't depict God as 'a nature god' at all.

In the Bible, God comes BEFORE nature, and God is the powerful, transcendant, purposeful Creator of all that we call nature.

In other ancient religions' creation accounts, NATURE COMES FIRST. Nature comes first, and the gods then somehow evolve from Nature or else are identified totally with Nature.

An example is Disney's tree-spirit "Grandmother Willow" that Pocahontas (in that movie) was scripted to seek love-life advice from.

(They didn't even have the honesty to let moviegoers know that Pocahontas became a Christian, relying on the true transcendant Creator God instead of some penny-ante pagan devil stuck in a tree trunk!)

Anyway, in Genesis and the Bible, the true eternal and infinite God exists before all else, and all else (including nature) is derived solely from His creative, purposeful, powerful hand AND continues to depend upon His sustaining power (Heb. 1:3 for example) to this day.

He is not limited to nature nor is identified with nature; and as Creator, He can supersede known natural laws via supernatural intervention (miracles) anytime at His sovereign discretion.

:::::

I'm not trying to be lengthy, and I apologize for that.
I'm just saying that honestly, Conso should have at least known THAT much about God and God's Word already, and especially believed it already, instead of attacking God's Word like this.

Pope Benedict is, as always, mondo cool and I'm sure he'll do a lot for Catholic Christianity like his extremely cool predecessor John Paul 2.

But just as the late Pope JP2 ultimately found it necessary in the course of things, to put some Pest Control on certain theological leeches within the ranks, it may be necessary for Pope Benedict to dial up some DDT as well.

(Quickly, sir, quickly!)

**************************

FL

This is still a very good thing, since Creationists always like to posture as tho the only alternative to being a Fundamentalist Protestant Creationist is to be an atheist evolutionist. That is, they need to make people believe there's no middle ground, you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution. As much as the Fundies revile the Catholic church, when the 'main office' of a church of a billion Christians comes out against Creationism, it makes the Fundies' lies much tougher to maintain.

Same old stuff, really. The Bible (fundamentalist interpretation) says one thing, reality says another. Who you gonna believe, the evidence or the biblical interpretation indoctrinated into you. Well, the thing about indoctrination is, you really don't have any control over this. So Consolmagno struggles to rectify the real-world evidence with the bible, while FL has no struggle. Bible 1, reality 0, next!

I admit I'm always struck with the towering arrogance of this position. What's regarded as infallible and inerrant isn't the bible, it's someone's *interpretation* of the bible. Consolmagno illustrates that it's possible for them to change their mind about the infallibility of their own interpretation without the bible changing at all. But here we have FL insisting that HE is infallible. Not the bible, not God, not the Church, but FL as a person.

And we're supposed to accept this? Well, as Carl Sagan wrote, you can't *talk* someone out of a physical disorder.

Good news: the Vatican (including Pope JP-II) flatly state that creationism is bad science AND bad religion. No disagreement there.

Bad news: As a Pagan, I am truly fed up with Vatican bigwigs misusing words like "pagan" or "neo-pagan" to mean "anything that differs with our official doctrine, or for which we want to dodge responsibility." The worst manifestation of this was when Pope Palpadict blamed "neo-paganism" for the Holocaust that took place in the overwhelmingly Christian nations of Europe.

During the Reformation, Catholic practices and beliefs were labelled "pagan" as an excuse to treat Catholics as alien enemies. Now the Catholics are doing the same thing themselves, and for the same reasons. It's called scapegoating, and it's wrong, whether it's done out of laziness (as I suspect is the case with the Vatican astronomer) or out of malice.

Modern Paganism is generally "defined" as "nature-based spirituality;" this generally entails LEARNING ABOUT NATURE, and none of the Pagans I've known have any problem doing so. Some of us are actual scientists, and the rest of us are okay with science as a means of describing -- and finding ways to preserve -- the natural world our Gods created.

Besides, we Pagans can't even agree on our own creation-stories (Greek? Norse? Celtic? Native-American? Hindu?), let alone organize to get them into any science curriculum. Our internal squabbles are bad enough without that sort of campaign, thankyouverymuch.

PS: The Vatican has a meteor collection? Is it open to the public? I see a "DaVinci Code" sequel here...

One more thing: FL's post, pasted from elsewhere, is simply too stupid to deserve a response. As his idiotic invocation of JP-II shows, he clearly knows nothing about the RCC's official take on evolution -- or anything else, for that matter.

I believe they're using the term "paganism" less in the sense of "Neopaganism, a comprehensive religion" than "a belief that god(s) interfere directly in the affairs of men and nature, such as might be found in the mythologies of older cultures and, for some reason, Pat Robertson's head."

FL,

An yet, ID/creationism is all about science and has nothing to do with religion. Right?

FL comment is too stupid to pay any attention. Troll go crawl into a hole where the sun never shines.

Actually, the fact that FL gets his panties in a bunch over this is pretty much exactly the sort of evidence that is useful to prove religious purpose.

Otherwise, why would he be upset?

I vote we archive it for the next beating! Er... Trial!

I think it's kind of funny that the best FL can do is to respond with some silly gibberish from Answers in Genesis, given that absolutely no one except other American Protestant fundies exactly like himself takes that site seriously...

So Consolmagno struggles to rectify the real-world evidence with the bible,

if we cared what AIG had to say about ANYTHING, we certainly wouldn't need morons like yourself to point the way.

But here we have FL insisting that HE is infallible. Not the bible, not God, not the Church, but FL as a person.

FL wrote:

Raging Bee: since you and I are aware of John Paul II's statement on evolution, you must naturally be aware that there's absolutely nothing in JP2's statement that even remotely supports Conso's accusation of paganism.

Um...that's kinda my point: NOTHING supports ANYONE's "accusation of paganism."

Come to think of it, your reference to "paganism" as something one is "accused" of, further proves your ignorance on the subject -- an ignorance you seem to share with certain Vatican officials.

good science makes no pre-judgement as to whether the universe is constructed on principles of order or chaos.

— Sir_Toejam

I believe they're using the term "paganism" less in the sense of "Neopaganism, a comprehensive religion" than "a belief that god(s) interfere directly in the affairs of men and nature, such as might be found in the mythologies of older cultures and, for some reason, Pat Robertson's head."

— Gloom raider

The worst manifestation of this was when Pope Palpadict blamed "neo-paganism" for the Holocaust that took place in the overwhelmingly Christian nations of Europe.

— Raging Bee

Ah the 'Paganism' that the Astronomer is referring to is the one with the God in the leaves and the sand and whizzy thingies that started off the life on the Planet with all the people on it. The one that does all the gnashing of the teeth and the flooding of the arks and striking down of the false temples and waging of the wars and the making barrenness of the sheep.
Naturalistic theology or some such with f(G)>=1

The one that ISN'T that ...is the one that they're club has a direct link to.... through the telescopes I suppose, but whatever ....the one that flicked the cosmic lighter to start the cosmic fuse that caused the bang that came from the dynamite with all the mesons in it and globulated into the 3rd rock which scientifically self produced life. (Could be retired)

Father George V. Coyne, head of the Vatican Observatory has written; "I have Catholic friends who tell me they pray that scientists will not find answers to certain questions so that they can continue to believe in God...."

— maine yankee

So FL claims to believe in a god. Evidence for gods: zero
He claims to be a creationist. Evidence for creation: zero
He claims to accept a literal Genesis. Evidence for a literal Genesis: zero

And NOW, when someone disagrees on the grounds that there is overwhelming evidence for a *supported* explanation, he demands (wait for it)...evidence! Show me evidence that Genesis is pagan. Show me evidence that I consider my interpretation of Genesis infallible. Suddenly, evidence matters. When the rules favor you, insist they be followed. When they do not, ignore them. Typical creationist tactics, but who else is fooled?

I also notice that FL is once again playing the "invalid default" game - that nonsense somehow becomes gospel unless someone with any knowledge wastes time refuting it. Otherwise, it is "unchallenged" and must be true.

What ever happened to "the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"? Do creationists get more eternity-points if they can lie themselves into their faith, rather than simply accept it?

Michael Behe, who is arguably the world's #1 scientist devoted to promoting anti-evolution, is a Catholic. Yet Protestants with a prior commitment to pseudoscience rave about him.

Speaking of vengeful Gods.
http://radfringe.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rf052106.gif

When you do, you will discover that this field of science (in fact, all fields) is consistent with Scripture when the evidence is correctly interpreted [italics mine].

Brother Consolmagno argued that the Christian God was a supernatural one, a belief that had led the clergy in the past to become involved in science to seek natural reasons for phenomena such as thunder and lightning, which had been previously attributed to vengeful gods. "Knowledge is dangerous, but so is ignorance. That's why science and religion need to talk to each other," he said.

While I agree with Brother Guy, I'd go much farther. ID is poor theology. For young Earth ID, the simple argument is: God created the Universe, including dinosaur fossils, about 6,000 years ago. So, God created misleading evidence. This is inconsistent with the loving God of the Bible. This argument works with any Universe younger than about 13.7 billion years. Presumably, for ID in agreement with the age of the Universe, God created it way back then. Fine. Science doesn't pretend to care. These IDers will have to argue about Evolution as best they can. With an old Universe there just isn't any theological reason for argument.

FL is guilty of what Sherry Tepper in "The Fresco" called worshipping Scripture instead of God.

From the religious viewpoint, God made the 4-billion+-year-old rocks and gave us the ability to learn about them, but Scripture disagrees with the evidence God gave us.

Who you gonna believe, FL? The world God made, or the Scripture men wrote?

norm wrote:

He's still restricting the range of "natural phenomena."

What about natural reasons for phenomena such as religion, mind, consciousness and human psychology. What is and isn't a "natural" phenomena?

Where, exactly, is he 'restricting the range of "natural phenomena."?' I see no such restrictions in the bits quoted here.

norm wrote: He's still restricting the range of "natural phenomena." What about natural reasons for phenomena such as religion, mind, consciousness and human psychology. What is and isn't a "natural" phenomena?

Here is Paul Taylor's assessment of Consolmagno's mess:

(snip big long boring post about FL's religious opinions)

Gee, FL, thanks for the sermon.

Let me just point out for everyone that FL's religious opinions are just that -- his opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else's religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow FL's religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

You are just a man, FL. Just a man.

I believe they're using the term "paganism" less in the sense of "Neopaganism, a comprehensive religion" than "a belief that god(s) interfere directly in the affairs of men and nature, such as might be found in the mythologies of older cultures and, for some reason, Pat Robertson's head."

(snip big long boring post about FL's religious opinions)

— Lenny

Ah well, I suppose it*would* be boring to see the same cut-and-paste responses from me all the time.

But then, they're not aimed at the regulars, but at the lurkers who only come in here for a time to "see what all the fuss is about".

Since the fundies haven't come up with a new argument in 40 years and just endlessly repeat the same things over and over, I see no need to reinvent the wheel each time. They give a cut-and-paste argument, I give a cut-and-paste response. (shrug)

It'd be more interesting of FL would answer the simple question I've been asking him. But alas, like every other fundie, FL is lethally allergic to answering direct questions. . . .

And to whom do they believe they are praying?

[As an atheist, I think any religious faith is misplaced.]

I'm an atheist too, but somehow I feel that equating creationism to paganism is an insult to pagans. Anyone agree?

It'd be more interesting of FL would answer the simple question I've been asking him. But alas, like every other fundie, FL is lethally allergic to answering direct questions

translation:

I haven't a clue how to address what you asked me, so let me do a massive google easter egg hunt and pull up some random drivel mixed with direct quotes from AIG as an argument instead.

If FL could only see how pathetic even the setup to his promised addressal is.

amazing.

You mean like the question I answered last time? And the one I answered prior to that?

— FL

Well, I don't blame you a bit, Rev; given the current situation thereof, I'd want to change the subject too (and very quickly, I might add), if I were an evolutionist.

— FL

You mean like the question I answered last time?

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation

Continued next post...

I'm an atheist too, but somehow I feel that equating creationism to paganism is an insult to pagans. Anyone agree?

— Shalini

"i don't think the average creationist will care: Catholocism is considered a fallen, degraded form of Christianity. My time in fundamentalism was spend getting earfuls about how evil catholics are and how poorly they represent the christian ideal. Really sad."

Especially if they realized it was the Catholic church who made the decisions for which books originally got included in the Bible.

As you say, sad.

- K.

I can actually understand the "Hitler/Neopagan" argument. In creating those public ceremonies and whatnot, Hitler did in fact borrow a lot from pre-Christian rites, festivals, etc. It was all part and parcel of a huge Cult of Personality campaign which essentially attempted to usurp the contemporary Christian beliefs and practices to further the myth of the "Aryan" pseudo-history and utilize the very potent psychology of group-think with bonfires and torchlight and monumental public shrines. What Hitler did was build up a "cult of the blood," inserting "Aryan" psuedo-mythology and racial supremacy into the public spiritual self-image, because such energetic and romantic practices would help to win over the people of a fallen nation, a population that's bitter and feeling repressed by the rest of the world in a post-Versailles Fatherland. Bread and circuses, without the bread and where the audience participates in the circus.
Hitler's own views on religion, be it Christian or otherwise, are rather hard to fathom given his frequently contradictory treatment of Christianity in public and private venues. I suspect that, like most "good" politicians, he told his current audience what he thought they wanted to hear. Anything to further his own agenda.
I haven't read this Ratzinger statement, but there is a case for Hitler building up a neopagan sect and perverting the public religion for the sake of gaining a spiritual edge over any possible competitors, including the Church. Ratzinger, having lived through Nazi Germany, would understand this. However, if there's any attempt to link unrelated neopagan religions (like say, Wicca) with Hitler, THAT is inappropriate. Anybody have a link handy?

We've been through this routine of yours before, Lenny. I suspect even the "lurkers" you mentioned, probably have it down pat by now.

Um, has it occurred to you, FL, that the primary reason that you are allowed to post your garbage here is that you give us educated folks the opportunity to "go through the routine" for the benefit of new lurkers?

Think about it.

Mike says: "Science indeed presupposes given structural entities and law-like regularities."

I think Sir_Toejam is correct. Science assumes nothing.

The sort of reasoning Mike discuss is seen a lot. It seems to be an analysis of how science works. However, it is hard to describe already an idealised method of science. Yet harder to describe how the results of science behaves.

The method of science is used because it works. It uses observations to find phenomena, and consequently the theories are validated by observations. The phenomena are called natural by definition only, not by assumption.

General assumptions can be explained as derivative and being observations. Order instead of chaos follows in large enough mathematical or physical structures, and is observed. Universality is parsimonious, and is observed. Causality follows from order and observers proper time, and is observed. And so on and so forth.

That repeated observations and validated theories are reliable is a consequence of order and, again, an observation of how the methods of science has behaved. If they weren't reliable, we wouldn't use them. So again no assumptions.

The best we can say is that science depends on some of these observations to be true in order to work. I think it adds to the confusion to call such observations and phenomena assumptions.

As a remark, the observation that notions like order and chaos have several senses are correct. But that is also true for all of them. Causality for example can be the local causality of proper time, or the lightcone, or the determinism of classical or quantum (outside wavefunction collapse) systems development, et cetera.

As another remark, the notion of "natural laws" used here is different from the use within science. For a contemporary discussion, see http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/05/25/danger-in-londons-science-museum/ .

The best notion presented is that laws are "effective statements which arise from the underlying theory ... describing a particular behaviour for a very specific situation".

The discussion goes on to note that "we should just drop the pretense that "theory" and "law" are well-defined technical terms that indicate an ideas status in the hierarchy of correctness:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/09/19/theories-laws-facts/ "

So even the notions of law and theory are problematic when we want to describe how science works in detail.

FL, (French Letter?). I also want to see the link to where you answered Lenny. As far as I recall, you usually enter a thread, spew a lot of BS and then run away.

oh very clever Renier F.L.= french letter.
How deflating
Yes a pet dog grabs it from beside the bed and runs off.
I think F.L. can rest assured it will never be used as a prevention from stupidity...unless he puts it over his head.

FL, (French Letter?). I also want to see the link to where you answered Lenny.

As far as I recall, you usually enter a thread, spew a lot of BS and then run away.

Um, has it occurred to you, FL, that the primary reason that you are allowed to post your garbage here is that you give us educated folks the opportunity to "go through the routine" for the benefit of new lurkers?

It's really interesting that Fundamentalists consider Catholicism as
"Fallen Christianity".
After all, The Catholic Church is the very first Christian Church and is 2000+ years old. All other Christian Churches are derived from the Catholic Church.

I guess these Fundamentalists have trouble counting and also have trouble with remembering historical facts?

Wheels: you're generally right about Hitler's personality cult, and his appropriation of Norse mythology, symbolism, etc. I suspect, however, that the current Pope is using this talk of "neo-paganism" to conceal, deny or ignore the complcity of Christians in the regime -- and the mind-set -- that eventually perpetrated the Holocaust.

Many Christians, particularly of Ratzinger's bent (conservative, authoritarian, resisting the advance of liberty and free-thought) supported fascism -- and Hitler -- as an ally against "Atheistic Communism," which was then seen as the arch-enemy, not only of religion, freedom and private property, but of pretty much all other features of civilized society as well. And now Ratzinger is trying to hide this inconvenient fact by pretending it was all the fault of some other religion, and that the RC Church and Christian doctrine remain blameless and therefore deserving of continued unquestioning obedience.

And no, the Vatican astronomer is not part of this evil conspiracy; he's just lazily using a word as he's been conditioned to use it, while focused on an entirely different matter. He should have done a little more research, but hey, we have bigger atrocities to get pissed about.

It's really interesting that Fundamentalists consider Catholicism as "Fallen Christianity". After all, The Catholic Church is the very first Christian Church and is 2000+ years old. All other Christian Churches are derived from the Catholic Church.

...I guess these Fundamentalists have trouble counting and also have trouble with remembering historical facts?

My guess is that they have the most trouble with wiser people and institutions telling them that life isn't as simple as they insist on thinking it is. Previous generations of radical "Christians" have also attacked the older branches of Lutheranism and Anglicanism as "too popish." And many born-agains are filled with more arrogance than spirituality, often bragging about their ability to question and ridicule elders in THEIR OWN CHURCHES. I remember Children of God pamphlets saying that all you needed to get to Heavan was their own extremely simple message of salvation and forgiveness; all that education, experience, hard work, helping others, tough choices, adult behavior and civilization stuff was not only unnecessary, but OF THE DEVIL!!!

I see the same tone in the entire anti-science movement: the terminally stupid rebelling against everyone who ever tried to teach them anything complicated.

For young Earth ID, the simple argument is: God created the Universe, including dinosaur fossils, about 6,000 years ago. So, God created misleading evidence. This is inconsistent with the loving God of the Bible.

— Stephen Uitti

Thus Paul Taylor's response to Conso, remains unchallenged.

— FL

It's really interesting that Fundamentalists consider Catholicism as "Fallen Christianity". After all, The Catholic Church is the very first Christian Church and is 2000+ years old. All other Christian Churches are derived from the Catholic Church.

Not to defend Fundamentalism in any way, but the Roman Catholic Church of today is hardly the same as the church of 1900 or even 500 years ago.

— Bill Gascoyne

Wheels: you're generally right about Hitler's personality cult, and his appropriation of Norse mythology, symbolism, etc. I suspect, however, that the current Pope is using this talk of "neo-paganism" to conceal, deny or ignore the complcity of Christians in the regime --- and the mind-set --- that eventually perpetrated the Holocaust.

— Raging Bee

Wheels: here's a link to my commentary on the "neopagan popetalk," with more links to more of my commentary...but you should find at least one link to an actual news source in there somewhere...

http://motherwell.livejournal.com/49762.html

Enjoy...

I... would agree with this, but it isn't like the Protestants resemble the church of 1900 or 500 years ago any more than the Catholics do, either. I also in many ways think the Catholic church of today is far more similar to the Protestant church of today, than the Catholic church of today is similar to the Catholic church of 500 years ago.

Wheels: here's a link to my commentary on the "neopagan popetalk," with more links to more of my commentary...but you should find at least one link to an actual news source in there somewhere...

— Raging Bee

Guys, clean up your act

One wonders what Bro. Consolmagno's opinion is of St. Peter.
Or of the Vatican's past opinions and actions re. scientific advance. Back in the days when we were all State - sponsored believers.
(St. Peter certainly wasn't state - sponsored.)
This Page has a message somewhere.

You claimed, rather stridently, that ID isn't creationism and that DI doesn't support creationism.

In the Wedge Document, under "Five Year Objectives", the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture lists: "Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation" What, precisely, is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI lists as one of its "objectives", and why, exactly, do they want "mainstream christian denominations" to "defend" it?

1. To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences, and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. 2. To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science. (emphasis mine) 3. To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation and repudiates Darwinism.

F.L. stated Because, once again, creationism necessarily involves intelligent design,blah blah blah.

Ooookay... So, creationism is not ID, it just helps ID, and that's why the ID movement must help creationist beliefs gain ground?

...

...Like the way that, say, SETI should promote and help UFO cults, because, well, UFO cults are all about extra-terrestrial intelligence, and therefore help SETI in some way to gain more scientific merit?

LOL

Thanks for playing, FL.

You know F.L. just to make things easier for yourself just forget about ID ...its dead, but creationism, now that's the real deal, run with it. There must be somewhere where no one has heard about the Dover decision, the moon?, how about cockroaches? they don't read papers, or watch TV, trailer parks should be a good place to look. Have you tried FOX news only 3% of their viewers think, that leaves 97% available to YOU.

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation and repudiates Darwinism.

Well, it should be clear to you that the major Christian denominations ALL have "a traditional doctrine of creation"---indeed, we call it Genesis chapters One, Two, and Three. Creationism, with its undeniable biblical roots, necessarily accepts the concept of an Intelligent Designer.

So by defending their own traditional creation accounts found in their own Bibles, (instead of acting like that messed-up Conso dude and trashing their own Bibles,) the major Christian denominations would also hasten the influence of the Intelligent Design concept "in spheres other than that of natural science", which, after all, was the DI's stated goal that formed the context fo your question.

(Besides, since these faith groups' own Bibles already posit the doctrinal claim of God as an Intelligent Designer, why not encourage members of these faith groups to accept what their own Bibles say? Couldn't hurt, and instead would greatly help their religious cause.)

Does all this mean that ID is creationism? Nope, not at all. Why not? Because, once again, creationism necessarily involves intelligent design, but the 3-point intelligent design hypothesis

functions without ivolvining the tenets of creationism.

So here's your bottom line: ID is not creationism, and upon closer examination in context, your DI snip there honestly doesn't change a thing.

Nor does the DI advocate creationism; it instead encourages churches to believe (and learn how to explain and defend) their own traditional biblical creation accounts

, because simply doing that much would help hasten ID's influence in cultural spheres outside those of the natural sciences

What matters to me, is that once again, the "lurkers" have seen me answer your persistent questions....again.

I will probably not be answering questions from you for a while

If you attempt to complain about my silence, btw, I'll simply post a simple one-line link to this thread along with a couple previous links

Ooookay... So, creationism is not ID, it just helps ID, and that's why the ID movement must help creationist beliefs gain ground?

WOOOOAAAHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOLD THE PHONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ID has a "hypothesis"?

— Lenny Flank

IOW, creationism doesn't start with empirical observation as the scientific method demands, creationism starts clearly and openly, with the Bible's claims, and then creationists develop their claims/models from there. ID however, (particularly the 3-point ID hypothesis that I've shared with you before), starts ENTIRELY from empirical observation and does not assume, nor invoke, nor involve any claims of anybody's sacred texts whatsoever, either tacitly or overtly. Therefore ID is not creationism. There ya go.

— FL

Is FL arguing that the the world was designed but not necessarily created? How would anyone know?

How would anyone know?

I lost count of how many times FL insisted that "ID is not creationism;" but then I realized it didn't really matter, because he completely undermined this feverishly repeated assertion by admitting that lots of "Christians" used ID to support their own (creationist) beliefs, and IDers thrived by finding common cause with said "Christians."

And if ID is really SCIENCE, then why this emphasis on "help[ing] hasten ID's influence in cultural spheres outside those of the natural sciences?" I don't remember any partisan campaigns to enhance the influence of quantum physics in "cultural spheres outside those of the natural sciences;" ditto the germ theory, heliocentrism, or any other major scientific breakthrough.

ID however, (particularly the 3-point ID hypothesis that I've shared with you before), starts ENTIRELY from empirical observation and does not assume, nor invoke, nor involve any claims of anybody's sacred texts whatsoever, either tacitly or overtly.

WHICH "empirical observation" was that, specifically? (Clarification: "I can't possibly comprehend how [insert really interesting biological process or system here] could possibly have evolved, therefore poof-goddidit" is NOT an "empirical observation.")

And, while we're at it, how does FL explain the empirical observation of the phrase "cdesign proponentists" in early drafts of Pandas?

Oh, wait, FL isn't gonna be "answering" questions for awhile; so I guess the debate is over.