Whaaaaa? Spurious Paul Nelson quote in The Guardian

Have you asked her about the quote?

I left a comment on it at the Guardian article. I'm sure someone will check it out, probably Paul himself...

I'm afraid this doesn't surprise me. Karen Armstrong is not very rigorous and tends to say other gooey-brained stuff. For example, see here:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=202.

She really isn't any friend of rationalist thought.

There are plenty of fundies trolling the article. One post I particularly like. It says that "liberal secularists" want embryonic stem cell funding so they can deny the sanctity of life and thus promote abortion. Why? Because without abortion, the position that you should be allowed to have sex with whom you wish is "untenable."

Two non-sequiturs in a row. Good job, fundie.

Two non-sequiturs in a row. Good job, fundie.

A creationist is misquoted in a "July 31, 2006" article and here I am on July 31, 2006 seeing the quote debunked here on the Thumb.

If Ms. Armstrong had misquoted an "evolutionist", we would not be seeing any debunking in creationist sites, they would repeat it.

1) "embryonic stem cell funding" leads to 2) "deny the sanctity of life" leads to 3) "promote abortion" leads to 4) "the position that you should be allowed to have sex with whom you wish"

— Anonymous_Coward

A creationist is misquoted in a "July 31, 2006" article and here I am on July 31, 2006 seeing the quote debunked here on the Thumb. If Ms. Armstrong had misquoted an "evolutionist", we would not be seeing any debunking in creationist sites, they would repeat it.

"Cutting-edge Jewish End-time warriors"

Great name for a rock band...

It'll be interesting to see if there will be a retraction or correction. The Guardian is usually pretty scrupulous about that kind of thing.

And respect for calling BS on a supposed quote from an opponent. I'm pretty certain the gesture wouldn't be reciprocated if the roles were reversed.

I'm pretty certain the gesture wouldn't be reciprocated if the roles were reversed.

We have already seen how Dembski defends his quote minning. He claims it is just fine!

PT and folks at the NCSE are the champion quote-miners, routinely quoting the pope's statements on human evolution as if he gave his blanket endorsement to the standard garden-variety view of the diversity of life as championed on this site. As long as you guys are around, all other quote-miners can hope for no more than second best.

and Heddle, as long as you are around we can be assured of humour. Go cry somewhere else...

PT and folks at the NCSE are the champion quote-miners, routinely quoting the pope's statements on human evolution as if he gave his blanket endorsement to the standard garden-variety view of the diversity of life as championed on this site. As long as you guys are around, all other quote-miners can hope for no more than second best.

A creationist is misquoted in a "July 31, 2006" article and here I am on July 31, 2006 seeing the quote debunked here on the Thumb. If Ms. Armstrong had misquoted an "evolutionist", we would not be seeing any debunking in creationist sites, they would repeat it.

Gary Hurd linked:
We have already seen how Dembski defends his quote minning. He claims it is just fine!

Wow-these threads date back to a year before I started reading PT. You guys have been at this fight for a long time and IDists still don't understand the concept of intellectual honesty! Do any of these ID movement leaders ever come clean when they make mistakes? No wonder you get so annoyed when newbies show up spouting the same old trash. My hat is off to all of you who are in this for the long haul.

We have already seen how Dembski defends his quote minning. He claims it is just fine!

— Gary Hurd

My post took a few minutes to write up. Evolutionists wrote detailed responses many times its length on places like the Pandasthumb to justify that the problem with the Cambrian explosion was not really a problem.

— Dembski

My hat is off to all of you who are in this for the long haul.

Would I appear old-fashioned if I suggested checking for spelling mistakes? The Grauniad does have a certain reputation.

If nothing else, it always made the crossword interesting.

Bob

"PT and folks at the NCSE are the champion quote-miners, routinely quoting the pope's statements on human evolution as if he gave his blanket endorsement to the standard garden-variety view of the diversity of life as championed on this site. As long as you guys are around, all other quote-miners can hope for no more than second best."

All right.....who moved the rock?!

Collect some money for us while you're at it...

I can at least make a donation to talkorigins. Would that help? Of course, it would be small potatos compared to some of the DI supporters. Just reinforces the idea that being rich does not necessarily mean being wise...

Heddle, have you ever heard of theistic evolution?

Heddle, have you ever heard of theistic evolution?

As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is an oxymoron, something like "purposeful purposelessness." -William Dembski

One minor misstep occurs when "creation science" is dated to 1925, which is not quite accurate ("scientific creationism" was a particular expression of creationism that was codified around 1969 according to Ronald Numbers)

Re "purposeful purposelessness."

That sort of describes any genetic algorithm, doesn't it? (Loosely speaking, anyway.)

Henry

I found an apparent source of the quote using Google. It appears in Final Fontier Ministries, and the author is not clearly identified. Avner and Rachel Boskey are the key players in this site. I've never heard of ID being associated with apocalyptic ideas like this.

As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is an oxymoron, something like "purposeful purposelessness." -William Dembski

I saw that editorial and wasn't very happy with it. It has a good bit of really sloppy thinking in there, mostly to do with equating the very most extreme wing of the Christian right with the Christian right itself.

Any self-decribed "fundamentalist" who does not, in fact, specifically believe that Israel must conquer the middle east so that we can bring Jesus back-- or even anyone who knows enough about American religion to know this is not specifically true of all fundamentalists-- will likely see Armstrong's generalizations, realize they are inaccurate, and discard the entire article as factually inaccurate. This precludes getting any useful information out of the article, or reaching any useful conclusions from it (like "gosh, maybe the 'moderate' Christian political right is a bit extreme itself" or "I wonder who within the Christian right has more sway over the Republican party, the moderates or the extremists?").

Even someone who knows little enough about America to take Armstrong's entire article at face value (this is a Guardian article, after all, I doubt the intended audience is American) will be left with a cartoonish view of American fundamentalism which helps neither them nor us. After all, the reality (where the Christian right is actually a complex alliance including such diverse groups as biblical literalists, pro-lifers, gay-bashers, Left Behind-camp premillenial dispensationalists, dominionists, creationists and pseudo-calvinist capitalists-- which are not at all all the same group, but do sometimes partially overlap, are all mostly cheerful about allying against common foes, and are all usually disinclined to contradict one another publicly) is a lot more dangerous than the caricature that Armstrong presents in this article. If all the fundies were premillenial dispensationalists, they'd be a lot easier to defeat in the public sphere.

I sincerely hope that this article wound up this way because of space considerations or something, and that her book is of higher quality. Has anyone read it?

Hmmm, so, when IDiots say that "some biological structures are too complex to have evolved", what they really mean is "all biological structures..."?

I found an apparent source of the quote using Google. It appears in Final Fontier Ministries...

Avner and Rachel Boskey are the key players in this site. I've never heard of ID being associated with apocalyptic ideas like this.

It's the form of evolution that the Vatican does permit... It (theistic evolution) is completely compatible with non-theistic evolution---however it does not rule out the possibility of a discontinuity due to supernatural intervention. Its methodology in the lab and field would be indistinguishable from its non-theistic cousin. However, underneath the hood it would assume that God's sovereign plan could not be thwarted in any manner by unforeseen mutations and or natural cataclysms. And, in particular, the theistic evolution that the Vatican finds acceptable includes the notion that our species, singled out for special treatment, was inevitable. It would argue that, much like God uses the secondary cause of gravity to move the planets in their orbits, God uses the secondary cause of evolution to introduce the diversity of life---none of which has caught him by surprise. In other words, theistic evolution is God using evolution to intelligently design life. attack on PT and NCSE removed for clarity

It's the form of evolution that the Vatican does permit... It (theistic evolution) is completely compatible with non-theistic evolution---however it does not rule out the possibility of a discontinuity due to supernatural intervention. Its methodology in the lab and field would be indistinguishable from its non-theistic cousin. However, underneath the hood it would assume that God's sovereign plan could not be thwarted in any manner by unforeseen mutations and or natural cataclysms. And, in particular, the theistic evolution that the Vatican finds acceptable includes the notion that our species, singled out for special treatment, was inevitable. It would argue that, much like God uses the secondary cause of gravity to move the planets in their orbits, God uses the secondary cause of evolution to introduce the diversity of life---none of which has caught him by surprise. In other words, theistic evolution is God using evolution to intelligently design life.

Misquotation is hardly Armstrong's only failure. As another commentator remarked, the column is pretty sloppy. Her statements about this particular evangelical eschatology are erroneous. Its not a late 19th century phenomenon and not originally American either. The strain of thought to which she is referring is Dispensationalism, originating in Britain among the Plymouth Brethren in the mid-19th century.

The first question is "Do you accept the common biological ancestry of all organisms, including humans?" Most ID-ers when pressed will have to say "No," which means that they endorse Special Creation. In plain English, they are creationists.

Acceptors of science will say "yes." This classifies them as evolutionists.

The only other issue is the Origin of Life. The question is equally simple: "Do you accept that the origin of life did not involve an exception to the laws of Chemistry and Physics (i.e., a miracle)?" Creationists like Behe will say "No."

Science-acceptors will say "That's a reasonable assumption, if you want to do science about it."

Quite simple, really.

So, Heddle, what are your answers?

Sorry, the connection was refused the first time I posted. It must have posted but then refused the connection when it tried to update the page.

"where the Christian right is actually a complex alliance including such diverse groups as biblical literalists, pro-lifers, gay-bashers, Left Behind-camp premillenial dispensationalists, dominionists, creationists and pseudo-calvinist capitalists"

You're over thinking the religious right. I don't think you can compartmentalize the "movement" that much. Each particular nutjob may have his own brand of anti-social fantacism.. the problem is they all seem perfectly happy to march along lock step... And exactly how are these "diverse" groups again?

Congratulations, Heddle! You've successfully stated PT's take on the late Pope's position on evolution!

the answers are (1) I don't know and (2) no, although I support (wholeheartedly) abiogenesis research.

— heddle

PT critical thinking and rhetoric as practiced by an expert, Frank Schmidt, graduate summa cum laude of the PT school of logic:

Frank: If you take position A, you are not an 'acceptor of science.'

Detractor: I take position A.

Frank: Q.E.D.

Lights fade. Cue rim shot, snare drum, loud applause, backslapping, attaboys, and guffaws.

Heddle, what's your scientific evidence for Methuselah living to be 900?

Re Methuselah

Well, he couldn't have lived more years than reported, because in the year he reportedly died there was reportedly a rather large flood. Ergo therefore, something or other, reportedly.

Heddle, what's your scientific evidence for Methuselah living to be 900?

And exactly how are these "diverse" groups again?

— Ben

Obviously short of finding his bones there is no direct evidence---we can only point to genetic and biochemical research into extended lifespans, such as: Simon Melov et al., "Extension of Life Span with Superoxide Dismutase/Catalase Mimetics," Science 289 (2000), 1567-69. and here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0307929... and many others.

That technology wasn't known then. It still can't be done now. So what is your evidence that he lived to be 969, in the absence of any physical evidence that such a thing has ever happened? Why do you believe that he lived to be 969?

I believe it because it says so in the bible.

— heddle

short of finding his bones there is no direct evidence

In the days before Noah, long lifespans were common

And we have lots of human bones that pre-date "Noah" (say 3000 BCE or thereabouts) and no, long lifespans weren't common.

Forgive me. I did assume that we were following the traditional literalist's timeline.

I forgot that, whatever you are, it is certainly not "traditional." So, before you attribute to me faulty logic, why don't YOU define for me what we're talking about when we say "before the time of Noah," and go on to provide some corroborating physical evidence for the assertion "long lifespans were common" in that time-frame?

why don't YOU define for me what we're talking about when we say "before the time of Noah," and go on to provide some corroborating physical evidence for the assertion "long lifespans were common" in that time-frame?

I forgot that, whatever you are, it is certainly not "traditional."

In the days before Noah, long lifespans were common

Oh really? If that's the case, I retract all my charges regarding PT, NCSE, and their quote-mining of Rome. But I don't think that's the case. The party-line here and at NCSE is "Rome is OK with evolution, period," without discussion of the inconvenient caveats such as those I mentioned---i.e., they quote-mine.

Heddle would like to discuss what the Roman Catholic church has *said* about the issue. Let us consider that, but let us also consider what the Church has *done*. When push comes to shove, talk is cheap and it is by one's actions that we can judge one's position.

In 1981, when McLean v. Arkansas went to trial, "the individual plaintiffs include[d] the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, ..." (decision of Judge William Overton).

In 1983, when an attempt was made to repeal the bill that became Edwards v. Aguillard, the Louisiana Catholic conference (i.e., the bishops in the Louisiana dioceses) (27 January 1983; I could type the whole thing in if it were worth it) wrote their rejection of atheistic evolution but went to say, "... the Bishops insist that the teaching of the Catholic Church does not require that one accept the creation stories as scientific or historical accounts; therefore one cannot draw any scientific conclusions from the Bible. The Bible is God's plan for salvation and not an encyclopedia of the physical world." The RC Church was strongly opposed to the creationism law and strongly supportive of the efforts of the Louisiana Interchurch Council to get it repealed.

I think the Noahic flood was a local flood in Mesopotamia, ~50k years ago.

Heddle said:

"Typical PT logic. I am not a YEC, but I must abide by YEC timelines."

You don't have to. Admittedly I don't know the specifics of their chronology, but can't even YECers have a 969 year old bloke in a YEC timeline of 6000 years?

"evolution's and abiogenesis's greatest enemy is insufficient time (true)"

LOL!!! 4 BILLION years of earth's existence and that's still not enough time? How long did God take, and by which method? Oh yeah: 6 days, and 'Poof!'.

Can you conceive of any set of circumstances that would ever cause you to conclude that an event described in the Bible couldn't have happened?

Newsflash, Heddle. Those "caveats" are only "inconvenient" if PT and NCSE are saying "Rome is OK with atheistic evolution," which they are patently not saying

The RC Church was strongly opposed to the creationism law and strongly supportive of the efforts of the Louisiana Interchurch Council to get it repealed.

Well then, it seems to me we have a big discrepancy with the scriptural genealogy, which, I believe, is fairly complete from Noah to Abraham.

but can't even YECers have a 969 year old bloke in a YEC timeline of 6000 years?

LOL!!! 4 BILLION years of earth's existence and that's still not enough time? How long did God take, and by which method? Oh yeah: 6 days, and 'Poof!'.

Heddle said:

"I'm not saying it is impossible, but the problem is much, much harder than originally imagined."

I don't doubt it. But I don't think it's impossible either.

"Do you mean 6 days or 6 ages with your argument-ending 'Poof!'?"

You tell me. (shrug)

For example, if it is ever conclusively demonstrated that King Solomon never existed the entire bible would come a-tumblin' down.

However, miracles are excluded. You can't disprove a miracle, because they don't obey the physical laws---which is why they are miracles. So a proof that a person cannot walk on water doesn't disprove the bible.

Rome says it is OK with evolution with caveats that mean it is OK with theistic evolution. ... PT and NCSE state that Rome is OK with evolution.

Am I close? This is indeed dizzying.

— heddle

Hey Heddle did Eve have a mother and who was she?

Was Mary the mother of God?

And you try to lecture US on logic? Are you on crack?

Is this the NEW logic that we were introduced to in MP's Holy Grail?

You know..... where earthquakes can be prevented by the use of sheep's bladders.

You fall in love with some number in a Book regarding a mythical old guy

....Old guys by the way make the worlds best liars...I know because I can make a kid believe anything I want them to..you should try it...oh that's right you already do ......in Sunday School.

Really give it a try, you will be surprised. I told my kids years ago that Steve Irwin the TV crocodile guy was eaten by a ....crocodile.....it took them YEARS to figure out I had pulled the wool over their eyes.

I considered it a valuable life lesson.

Anyway .....so the other biblical numbers are discounted .....because, why again?

Do you toss a coin to choose which bit you take as literal or do you go on GUT truthyness? OR shock horror are you a RELATIVIST?

Thanks for the lesson on your particular brand of biblical insanity wrt to the CC ....it's nice to know that Calvinists haven't lost their sense of humor...snicker.

Being only an admirer but not a practitioner of advanced PT Logic and Rhetoric, please let me know if I am close:

1) Rome says it is OK with evolution with caveats that mean it is OK with theistic evolution.

2) PT and NCSE state that Rome is OK with evolution.

3) The fact that PT and NCSE does not explicitly state that Rome is OK with atheistic evolution absolves them of quote-mining, even though they don't clarify Rome's position, and even though they give the impression that Rome is OK with any form of evolution.

Am I close? This is indeed dizzying.

Heddle, I'm not saying it is impossible, but the problem is much, much harder than originally imagined.

heddle is stone cold NUTS! i think i'm starting to like him... in the same way i love old cheech and chong movies, you know... heddle, you GO, man!

...snicker..
Heddle: That ...uh.... Methusula guy was really old man.
PT: Go easy on that sh*t man, it'll mess with your mind.
Heddle: Hey man, I can handle this ...(drools).
PT: Heddle wake up, you're trying to eat the floor.
Heddle: That ...uh.... Methusula guy was really old man.
PT: Oh..go back to sleep.

Heddle, you still can't give me a link for your claim 'people lived longer in Noah's time?

Fundamentalists seldom state this so baldly --- remove one element from the Bible and the whole thing evaporates. Would the whole thing come tumbling down if it was shown that Methuselah died in his 90's?

So essentially, you have an escape hatch that enables you from ever admitting that something in the Bible is impossible, since you have this big trash can labelled MIRACLES into which anything can go. Thus, the whole thing need never come tumbling down.

Things don't have to be any more complicated than this. If you're okay with theistic evolution you're okay with evolution. Period.

If Rome accepts theistic evolution, they automatically accept evolution. Theistic evolution adds to evolution, it does not subtract from or modify evolution.

We've told you dozens of times that we take the statement as a support of theistic evolution.

If the bible is wrong at one point, then it cant be trusted at all.

Yeah, that's why every bible is exactly the same. I get it now. Maybe I'll become a fundie and david can add my name to his little book of converts.

Or not.

Heddle said:

"The fact that people are theistic evolutionists precisely because they are not OK with evolution "period" is obvious only to those not educated on PT."

Boy, I didn't realise theistic evolutionists had such a big problem with atheistic evolutionists. Wake up, fella. If you're happy with evolutionary science, you're happy with evolutionary science. Anything else is a philisophical choice. You're trying to place religious people against athiests. It doesn't have to be like that.

heddle

For example, if it is ever conclusively demonstrated that King Solomon never existed the entire bible would come a-tumblin' down.

No, not really.

Methuseleh was flash-frozen in an ice storm. Discuss.

Q: How many popes does it take to confuse Heddle?

A: None.

No, you've said that a few times. There is no "we" here who has stated it dozens of times. There examples of "Rome supports evolution" without specifying it is "theistic"---which is textbook quote-mining.

So yes, I have heard of it.

— heddle

Hmmm, those that wish to claim that the Pope's statement on evolution was basically acceptance of evolution, as understood by scientists, need to be very careful. David Heddle is right to point that out.

Go and read the statement in it's entirety. The Pope is very clear on certain points, such as the fact that whatever happened in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is certain that HUMANS did not evolve.

He also speaks of numerous theories of evolution, and does not specifically announce which one he was supporting. One could imagine that he was thinking of ID, rather than neo-darwinian evolution.

That said, he was also very clear that the scientific support for evolution (neo-darwinian one imagines) is impressive.

My anaylysis: he thought that evolution is probably right, but that for the sake of Christianity's integrity, humans by definition had to be removed from the tapestry...

Well, he was half right. the evidence IS impressive, but there is no justification for excluding humans. Still, Dave Heddle is right to object when it is claimed that the Pope accepted evolution. THe exception of humans is a BIG exception, and not to be glossed over....

That same 'papa' warned of the rise of fundamentalism in particular (one presumes) the tickle you #ss with a feather version practiced by politically conservative Americans behind ID.

And the CC has long ago conveyed the message that the stories in putative sacred writings are just that...stories. Could have something to do with ID pin up boy Galileo.

Go and read the statement in it's entirety. The Pope is very clear on certain points, such as the fact that whatever happened in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is certain that HUMANS did not evolve.

However, miracles are excluded. You can't disprove a miracle, because they don't obey the physical laws---which is why they are miracles.

— David Heddle

I read the thing (in English) a couple of times, and can't find that line. Can you quote it for us?

— Ed Darrell

If you can prove the Solomon never existed, then the biblical history of Solomon cannot be written off as a miracle.

"There examples of "Rome supports evolution" without specifying it is "theistic"---which is textbook quote-mining."

Heddle,
I agree with you that it is important to recognize that the Vatican endorsed version of evolution has specific features regarding man's existence that are teleological in nature rather than the contingent factors found in a godless evolutionary process. But I don't think that point is missed on anyone here at PT. Obviously the Pope's endorsement of evolution shows that some believe in God and Evolution.

However, you are arguing that PTers ignore this distinction in order to support an idea that the Pope does not support. You also claim we are guilty pots calling the kettle black. You accuse us of quote mining but you provide no examples. Where are these quotes from PTers that make no mention of the theistic component to the Vatican's position and thus conclude that the Pope doesn't believe in a designer?

Simply saying the Pope endorses/supports evolution does not mean we are taking his statement out of context. The Pope DOES support the FACT of evolutionary changes in species. To quote him on this matter is not quote-mining. If one were to say, "This quote from the Pope shows that he supports evolution and therefore rejects any components of a designer", well that is using the quote out of context. But who says that? And when did they say it? Please provide examples.

In other words, accusing those who show that the Pope endorses evolution of quote mining is like accusing gradualists who quote Stephen Jay Gould, as supporting the fact of evolutionary change, of taking his quote out of context simply because they didn't qualify the quote by stating that S.J.G. is a punctuated equilibriumist and that they are gradualists. This is pointless quibbling being used to distract people away from the larger problems with ID and Creationism. And it is simply a false accusation! This very article shows that PTers have a genuine interest in quoting people correctly - even our opponents. And that we will take ourselves and our allies to task for misquoting, even if it was unintended.

You made your argument that we at PT are just as guilty of quote-mining, but for that to be so you need to provide the quotes from the users here and show where they quoted out of context. Saying, "the Pope supports evolution" is only out of context if evolution MUST equal atheism. For some it does and for some clearly it does not. If Kenneth Miller quotes the Pope it is ok but not if Richard Dawkins does it?

For someone to quote-mine they must take the original author's words and select only that portion which suits their agenda but grossly misrepresents the original author's intent and argument. You're saying that atheists by default are not allowed to quote anyone who believes in evolution and god as an agent in that process, because it is using those quotes as evidence for atheism. Wrong! Those quotes are being used to show evolution's strong rational appeal across the political and ideological spectrum. There is nothing that indicates in saying the Pope supports evolution that the evolution we speak of is without a designer or that it implies a certain kind of designer. It simply implies that there are people on both sides of the religious coin who agree that species have changed over time, evolving into other forms of species.

I think you are confusing the PT credo of arguing against those that would deny the FACT of evolutionary changes in species and replace these observations with untenable supernaturalism with the crusade of some to equate evolution with atheism.

Besides, how does showing that some have quoted the Pope out of context (which hasn't happened here unless the quoter concluded that the Pope supports godless evolution) prove your ideas about man's origins? It doesn't. You are simply trying to level the playing field in a game in which if we were to tally up the quote-mining offenses on both sides, IDers and Creationists would take the 1st prize in out-of context misrepresentations that further their own agenda! And you know it!

Oh, sure, I didn't know that is what you wanted.

Wrong, but people without any critical thinking---that necessarily includes graduates of the PT School of Logic and Rhetoric, often make that argument.

For example, if it is ever conclusively demonstrated that King Solomon never existed the entire bible would come a-tumblin' down.

Term-of-art quibble: Karen Armstrong's op-ed in The Guardian is NOT an editorial. It is her personal view. An editorial is the institutional view of the newspaper, and I have no reason to believe that the newspaper endorses her opinion. Newspapers frequently, and by policy, publish individual opinions contrary to their editorial policies.

David Heddle wrote: However, miracles are excluded. You can't disprove a miracle, because they don't obey the physical laws---which is why they are miracles.

And you feel entitled to lecture us about logic ... why?

I think the answer is no; since you can always say X is a miracle.

Simply saying the Pope endorses/supports evolution does not mean we are taking his statement out of context. The Pope DOES support the FACT of evolutionary changes in species. To quote him on this matter is not quote-mining. If one were to say, "This quote from the Pope shows that he supports evolution and therefore rejects any components of a designer", well that is using the quote out of context. But who says that? And when did they say it? Please provide examples.

Also the Catholic Catechism has specific statements supporting evolution. www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/episcopal_churc.html#comment-107729

Does it bother any of the ID/Creationist crowd that the Catholic Church made its peace with Darwin around 1951? www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/03/why_the_peppered_moth_remains_an_icon_of_evolution.html#comment-21141

That would be good news for the pro-evolution contingent as the Catholic church has explicitly endorsed natural selection / Darwinian evolution. www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/apparent_end_of.html#comment-55971

The Roman Catholic Church recently moved to reaffirm and clarify its acceptance of evolution as valid science. www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/evolution_sunda.html#comment-79295

the Catholic Church now accepts evolution as the explanation of the diversity of organisms, while retaining the teaching of a divine origin of life. www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/santorum_vs_san.html#comment-41302

So I ask for scientific evidence that 'people lived longer in Noah's time' and you give me a BIBLE PASSAGE? The bible is true because the Bible says so?

Does it bother any of the ID/Creationist crowd that the Catholic Church made its peace with Darwin around 1951? www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/03/why_the_peppered_moth_remains_an_icon_of_evolution.html#comment-21141

Comment #21167 Posted by John A. Davison on March 20, 2005 10:38 AM (e) (s) | kill The Catholic Church never made its peace with Darwin. It made its peace with evolution. Darwinism and evolution are far from synonymous. Evolution WAS a reality. Darwinism IS a scandal and a hoax and always was. John A. Davison

4) That said, it is probably best to simply ignore the ~100 miracles in the bible, and concentrate on the overwhelming bulk of the text, which does not describe miracles, and examine its historic claims.

If the history described in the bible is not testable, then no historic account in any ancient document is testable.

These statements attempt to convey that the Catholic Church is just peachy with evolution, period. It's demonstrably not.

For example, the book of Mormon historic claims can be put to the test both archeologically and scientifically---DNA testing can be performed to test whether native central-Americans are related to Jews, as alleged. Similar tests can be applied to the bible.

Comment #21141 Posted by c. l. currier on March 20, 2005 04:24 AM (e) (s) | kill Does it bother any of the ID/Creationist crowd that the Catholic Church made its peace with Darwin around 1951? I had always thought that the CC had an edge over any "Creation" Research group in theological sophistication. Or is there another agenda at work here? Perhaps, as crass as it may seem, MONEY! Some obscure American prophet said something to the effect that 'A sucker is born (reborn, perhaps) every minuite.' Wish they'd send me some tithes. America held out such promise to the world. Now all we can offer is fear and darkness of mind and spirit. What further proof of evolution does anyone need?

In the days before Noah, long lifespans were common

I have only the bible and current research indicating that longer lifespans are possible.

This bible has a great deal more to say about history and archeology than the relatively small amount of text it devotes to miracles.

Your 'current research' refers solely to some contemporary research that did not exist in 'Noah's time' that says longer lifespans might be possible some day, right?

This bible has a great deal more to say about history and archeology than the relatively small amount of text it devotes to miracles. If the history described in the bible is not testable, then no historic account in any ancient document is testable. For example, the book of Mormon historic claims can be put to the test both archeologically and scientifically---DNA testing can be performed to test whether native central-Americans are related to Jews, as alleged. Similar tests can be applied to the bible.

— heddle

Comment #82772 Posted by Leigh Jackson on February 28, 2006 05:27 PM (e) | kill I know of no statement from the CC saying that belief in theistic evolution is entirely a matter of faith. But now read the following abridged address from John Paul II: John Paul II wrote: The Proofs for God's Existence July 10, 1985 --- General Audience General Audience, July 10, 1985 When we ask ourselves "Why do we believe in God?" our faith provides the first response. God has revealed himself to humanity and has entered into contact with it. The supreme revelation of God has come to us through Jesus Christ, God incarnate. We believe in God because God has made himself known to us as the supreme Being, the great "Existent." However, this faith in a God who reveals himself, also finds support in the reasoning of our intelligence. When we reflect, we observe that proofs of God's existence are not lacking. These have been elaborated by thinkers under the form of philosophical demonstrations in the sense of rigorously logical deductions. But they can also take on a simpler form. As such, they are accessible to everyone who seeks to understand the meaning of the world around him. In speaking of the existence of God we should underline that we are not speaking of proofs in the sense implied by the experimental sciences. Scientific proofs in the modern sense of the word are valid only for things perceptible to the senses, since it is only on such things that scientific instruments of investigation can be used. To desire a scientific proof of God would be equivalent to lowering God to the level of the beings of our world, and we would therefore be mistaken methodologically in regard to what God is. Science must recognize its limits and its inability to reach the existence of God. It can neither affirm nor deny his existence. From this, however, we must not draw the conclusion that scientists in their scientific studies are unable to find valid reasons for admitting the existence of God. If science as such cannot reach God, the scientist who has an intelligence, the object of which is not limited to things of sense perception, can discover in the world reasons for affirming a Being which surpasses it. Many scientists have made and are making this discovery. Whoever reflects with an open mind on what is implied in the existence of the universe, cannot help but pose the question of the problem of the origin. Instinctively, when we witness certain happenings, we ask ourselves what caused them. How can we not but ask the same question in regard to the sum total of beings and phenomena which we discover in the world? A scientific hypothesis such as that of the expansion of the universe makes the problem all the more clear. If the universe is in a state of continual expansion, should not one go back in time to that which could be called the "initial moment," the moment in which that expansion began? But, whatever the theory adopted concerning the origin of the universe, the most basic question cannot be avoided. This universe in constant movement postulates a Cause which, in giving it being, has communicated to it this movement, and continues to sustain it. Without such a supreme Cause, the world and every movement in it would remain "unexplained" and "inexplicable," and our intelligence would not be satisfied. The human mind can receive a response to its questions only by admitting a Being who has created the world with all its dynamism, and who continues to maintain it in existence. The necessity to go back to a supreme Cause is all the greater if one considers the perfect organization which science has ceaselessly discovered in the structure of matter. When human intelligence is applied with so much effort to determine the constitution and modalities of action of material particles, is it not perhaps induced to seek their origin in a superior Intelligence which has conceived the whole? In face of the marvel of what can be called the immensely small world of the atom, and the immensely great world of the cosmos, the human mind feels itself completely surpassed in its possibilities of creation and even of imagination. It understands that a work of such quality and of such proportions demands a Creator whose wisdom is beyond all measure and whose power is infinite. All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator. To all these "indications" of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements, and such a marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence which would thus refuse to think, and to seek a solution for its problems. In conclusion, a myriad of indications impels man, who tries to understand the universe in which he lives, to direct his gaze toward his Creator. The proofs for the existence of God are many and convergent. They contribute to show that faith does not humble human intelligence, but stimulates it to reflection and permits it to understand better all the "whys" posed by the observation of reality.

Comment #115876 Posted by heddle on July 31, 2006 11:46 AM (e) | kill W. Kevin Vicklund, Heddle, have you ever heard of theistic evolution?

Catholic Church Supports Neo-Paleyism? Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 1191 on July 7, 2005 12:23 PM. Trackback URL: http://degas.fdisk.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1189 Today the Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about evolution and the Catholic faith: "Finding Design in Nature". On a quick read the op-ed appears to place the Catholic Church in league with "intelligent design" creationism. (I'm sure you will hear such victory cheers from the neo-Paleyists.) However, this quick read is deceiving, since the author made some mistakes when choosing his words for a US audience. Before getting upset at what the Archbishop wrote, consider this: The Archbishop is not writing to align Catholic theology with the anti-evolution movement. Instead he is writing to reaffirm the Catholic faith's commitment to theistic evolution and to eliminate any confusion that it is committed to atheistic evolution. (I have no idea why he thought that this needed to be done.) Compare and contrast the Archbishop's words to "Creationism talk suggests need to revisit Catholic education" in this week's Catholic Telegraph from Archdiocese of Cincinnati.

Arden, did you know the Jean Claude Van Damme movie Timecop is the literal truth? My evidence? I saw some articles that time travel might be possible in the future.

See? We're seeing this again.

Some creationist spews crap.

Then they are shown to be false.

And they still make the claim.

Heddle has been proven wrong long before he started posting.

Hasn't stopped him from making the same claims and not admitting to misrepresentation and outright lying in face of evidence.

...if it is ever conclusively demonstrated that King Solomon never existed the entire bible would come a-tumblin' down.

— Heddle

The Davidic Empire, which archaeologists once thought as incontrivertible as the Roman, is now seen as an invention of Jersalem-based priests in the seventh and eighth centuries BC who were eager to burnish their national history.

— Daniel Lazare

... [The priests] set about creating an imperial past commensurate with such an empire, one that had the southern heroes of David and Solomon conquering the northern kingdom and making rival kings tremble throughout the known world.

— Daniel Lazare

If you can prove the Solomon never existed, then the biblical history of Solomon cannot be written off as a miracle.

— Heddle

It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of a God who intended to create beings like us.

Your 'current research' refers solely to some contemporary research that did not exist in 'Noah's time' that says longer lifespans might be possible some day, right?

You have said yourself you'd lose all your faith in the Bible if anything in it were proven wrong, and presumably that would include the miracles.

The evidence is against their having been a global flood and even if there was, Noah's ark would have been worthless for saving anything.

Is it really so hard to understand that you cannot disprove miracles? Not even in principle? You cannot disprove that Jesus walked on water, you can only show that the laws of physics prohibit it---and so it would have to be---what's it called---oh yeah, a miracle!

Heddle wrote:

"These statements attempt to convey that the Catholic Church is just peachy with evolution, period. It's demonstrably not."

Those statements are bogus examples of what you claimed were quote-mining by PTers! Where are the specific quotes from the Pope or the Vatican that are out of context? Those statements don't even refer to any quote in particular!!! It seems you are claiming one thing (PTers quote mine) while giving examples for another thing entirely (that PTers are mistaken in their belief that the Catholic Church is "peachy" with Evolution).

First, at this point I think you should retract your claim that PTers quote mine as you have not provided any examples of actual quote-mining.

Second, if the Catholic Church is not peachy with the idea that species have changed over time into new species, i.e. evolution, than why did Pope John Paul II issue a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 in which he stated:

"It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers,
following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither
sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself
a significant argument in favour of this theory."

If I am wrong, then what, in your opinion, is he saying about evolution?

Here is the message in it's entirety: http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html

Reading the entire message it is clear that the Pope was arguing for theistic evolution. In particular, the major point of the message is that man is a special creation, possessing a soul that was divinely infused at some point in god's creation. The moment of soul infusing can never be observed under a microscope.

"But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of
moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within
the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its
ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans."

I think the Vatican IS Peachy with evolution (as a fact of species changing into new species over time). It's just not peachy with a godless evolution in which human consciousness arises through purely material processes alone. The Church must leave ample room for man's special relationship with god through creation.

Of course, you would be right to point out that there are a lot of Catholics who disagree with the Pope's message and reject the idea that species can change into new species over time. But they didn't issue the message that is being referred to as the Catholic Church's position on evolution.

I think it is safe to say however, that your claims of quote-mining are baseless.

That would be true if I thought the bible taught a global flood. Oh wait Heddle---you cannot just defend your interpretation of the bible---you must defend the interpretation that is easy for us to attack! Cheater! Oh no!, not the mustard seed! Drat! Next is "bats are birds", "pi = 3", and "rabbits chew their cud."

Referring back to the original article posted by Nick, I saw quite a disturbing report on BBC 4 the other evening. They interviewed John Hagee (pastor of Cornerstone church in San Antonio Texas) who's a strong dispensationlist. Apparently it transpires that a number of republican senators attend the church and some of them seemingly are basing their political ideas on Hagees teachings etc. I found the report quite scary !

Today I did my Google news scan for "creationist" and came up with these two gems:

http://www.bestsyndication.com/Articles/2006/r/ranganathan_babu/073106_young_earth.htm

http://peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=9974

It would seem that young Earth creationism is inextricably linked to dispensationalism

If Rome accepts theistic evolution, they automatically accept evolution. My guess, no doubt overly-optimistic, is even your colleagues wince at the indefensibility of such a claim. It is a trivial matter to find people who are supporters of theistic evolution only.

And of course it modifies evolution. The simplest litmus test is regarding our own species. The Vatican would argue, in its theistic evolution, that the evolution of man, being part of God's sovereign plan from before the foundation of the earth, was inevitable. Non-theistic evolution would disagree. Reset the initial conditions of the earth, and you may end up with nothing resembling man---in fact a well timed asteroid impact and there may be no complex life at all. In this regard they are as different as night and day.

We've told you dozens of times that we take the statement as a support of theistic evolution.

The Roman Catholic Church recently moved to reaffirm and clarify its acceptance of evolution as valid science. here

the Catholic Church now accepts evolution as the explanation of the diversity of organisms, while retaining the teaching of a divine origin of life. here

Dang---I've been found out. I was hoping nobody would notice that when I called it 'current' research it implied that it did not exist at the time of Noah. I should have known I can't sneak anything past you guys.

Oh no!, not the mustard seed! Drat! Next is "bats are birds", "pi = 3", and "rabbits chew their cud."

See? We're seeing this again. Some creationist spews crap. Then they are shown to be false. And they still make the claim. Heddle has been proven wrong long before he started posting. Hasn't stopped him from making the same claims and not admitting to misrepresentation and outright lying in face of evidence.

I'm probably gonna get slaughtered for this, but I can't resist. (I think a few of the other miracles might be a little tougher to explain, though) :-)

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060404_jesus_ice.html

Dunno if this is relevant, but YEC organisations like AIG etc. detest theistic evolutionists (and even OEC's like Hugh Ross). A lot of their venom is reserved for not just Christians who believe in a 4.5 billion year old Earth, but those who accept evolution as well.

John walks into a fast-food joint and orders a hamburger with lettuce, tomato, and ketchup. I later tell someone that John likes hamburgers.

Am I lying?

According to Heddle's logic, yes.

What's even funnier is that Heddle made all these exact same arguments, pretty much verbatim, in a big PT argument last winter, and he got smacked down pretty much the exact same way then. It's sort of cute that he seems to think that we're going to be convinced now, or maybe he thinks his skills in debating the heathens have somehow improved.

But just to clarify, I still think Heddle is talking nonsense.

Go and read the statement in it's entirety. The Pope is very clear on certain points, such as the fact that whatever happened in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is certain that HUMANS did not evolve.

— Ed Darrell

I read the thing (in English) a couple of times, and can't find that line. Can you quote it for us?

4. Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith---a point to which I shall return. Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis... (Snip discussion about science, including an explanation that there is more than one possible 'theory of evolution' and some of them may be anathemical to the church.) 5. The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has given us a magnificent exposition of this doctrine, which is one of the essential elements of Christian thought. The Council recalled that "man is the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake." In other words, the human person cannot be subordinated as a means to an end, or as an instrument of either the species or the society; he has a value of his own. He is a person. By this intelligence and his will, he is capable of entering into relationship, of communion, of solidarity, of the gift of himself to others like himself. St. Thomas observed that man's resemblance to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God's relationship with his creation. (Summa Theologica I-II, q 3, a 5, ad 1) But even beyond that, man is called to enter into a loving relationship with God himself, a relationship which will find its full expression at the end of time, in eternity. Within the mystery of the risen Christ the full grandeur of this vocation is revealed to us. (Gaudium et Spes, 22) It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet"). (Humani Generis) As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person.

including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe

Since heddle has declined to explain what on earth he meant by this, I would like to venture a guess as to what exactly he was thinking... My best guess here is therefore that Heddle's still-unexplained statement that, in the eyes of the catholic church "HUMANS did not evolve is simple misunderstanding..."

That should be amusing, since the quote you are attributing to me (HUMANS did not evolve) and for which you are mocking me for not defending did not, in fact, come from me. Someone named demallien wrote it in comment 116025.

— heddle

Or to state things more succintly, we are stating and/or implying that the Catholic Church supports the science of evolution, but not the various meta-physics of evolution. All of the caveats and conditions that Heddle has stated (that can be borne by the actual quote, at least) are meta-physics.

And, as has now been said several times, though we evolution-acceptors on PT often have a good deal of jolly fun bashing each other about regarding whatever our respective metaphysical positions may be surrounding the issues of existence and creation, essentially no one here has misrepresented or quote-mined the Catholic Church's statements so as to suggest that the church accepts or approves atheistic evolution.

Heddle was wrong when he contended to the contrary. He has been amply shown to have been wrong. A reasonable, sane, gracious individual--what used to be called a scholar and a gentle, ahem, person--would now admit he was wrong (as Coin just did above about a relatively-minor matter).

Heddle: time to step up to the plate...

****thumb-twiddling, elevator music, pages falling off calendar, and such-like****

Nah, I didn't think so.

Comment #58851 Posted by Jack Krebs on November 19, 2005 01:36 PM (e) PvM writes, While the Catholic church obviously supports intelligent design', it also seems to realize that 'Intelligent Design' is scientifically vacuous.

Comment #58853 Posted by David Heddle on November 19, 2005 01:55 PM (e) | kill Jack, if I understand him correctly, makes a very good point. There is no false dilemma. The Catholic Church is not stating that the choice for the faithful is between Behe/Dembski Intelligent Design and full-blown naturalisitc evolution, and only the latter is viable. The Church supports theistic evolution which is is a form of intelligent design (with a little 'i' and a little 'd'.) After all, the Church would say that everything turned out according to God's sovereign plan. Evolution may have been God's means to his end, but the outcome, the Church would insist, was never in doubt, and that God cannot be excluded from from having acted at any step in the process.

A reasonable, sane, gracious individual---what used to be called a scholar and a gentle, ahem, person---would now admit he was wrong

Hey, Heddle, ever heard of meta-physics?

Hey, Heddle, are you ever going to stop quote-mining us to support your accusations of quote-mining?

Hey, Heddle, have you figured out yet that "evolution, period" contains no meta-physical assumptions?

Re #116100. Here's a famous French philosopher's thoughts on the soul,mind,body etc. I think this discussion has been going on for centuries. I wonder what Descartes would have thought had he been alive today ?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm#SH7d

There are dozens of times when PT contributors have stated "Rome is OK with evolution." Most of the time, they don't qualify that statement.

Comment #32017 Posted by David Heddle on May 25, 2005 09:11 AM (e) | kill ... PT and its contributors try to make a great deal of Rome's support for evolution. They always fail to mention it is for theistic evolution only.

There are dozens of times when PT contributors have stated "Rome is OK with evolution." Most of the time, they don't qualify that statement.

Hey, Heddle, if I stop at my favorite fast-food chain and order a hamburger with ketchup only, did I order a hamburger?

Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that "new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge"("Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution"1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father's message acknowledges that there are "several theories of evolution" that are "materialist, reductionist and spiritualist" and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it "involves the question of man," however, Pope John Paul's message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the "ontological leap" to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.

— heddle

6. With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order---an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way---although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience---these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator's designs.

— JPII

Comment #116118 Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on August 1, 2006 03:15 PM (e) | kill Hey, Heddle, if I stop at my favorite fast-food chain and order a hamburger with ketchup only, did I order a hamburger?

Evolution itself answers a "how/what/when/where" question. Theistic evolution answers that question in the same way, but it also asnwers a "why" question.

I think JPII implied that he has no beef with the "how/what/when/where" answer, as long as it doesn't purport to also answer the "why".

I invite Heddle to find me a quote mine whose implication is that the Pope was "peachy" with an ultimate explanation, as derived somehow by evolution.

I don't think it exists; at least publicly, PT posters refrain from making ultimate arguments, since they are not under the purvue of science.

Furthermore, if one were to extrapolate from evolution to ultimate causes, I can assure Heddle that they wouldn't give a flying f*** what the Pope said one way or the other.

Them ain't hamburgers, Steve. ;)

Now, if saw someone order a hamburger with lettuce, tomato, and ketchup, and subsequently said or implied they liked cheeseburgers, then I would be wrong.

But we're not doing that.

BTW, I went to the NCSE site and did a search on "Pope evolution" The first 20 or so hits (I stopped there) either were the full quote without commentary, a discussion of Schonborn's (sp?) remarks with a brief reference to JPII's statement, a commentary on the quote, or had nothing at all to do with the quote. In all commentaries on the quote, the commentator mentioned the meta-physical position of the church.

Seems Heddle's credibility just took another hit...

Oh wait Heddle---you cannot just defend your interpretation of the bible---you must defend the interpretation that is easy for us to attack! Cheater!

And of course it modifies evolution. The simplest litmus test is regarding our own species. The Vatican would argue, in its theistic evolution, that the evolution of man, being part of God's sovereign plan from before the foundation of the earth, was inevitable. Non-theistic evolution would disagree. Reset the initial conditions of the earth, and you may end up with nothing resembling man---in fact a well timed asteroid impact and there may be no complex life at all. In this regard they are as different as night and day.

I think Heddle is hoping that if his credibility takes so many hits that all of his hot air leaks out, then he won't be a gasbag anymore.

Sorry, heddles, it doesn't work that way...

A minor point: In Hebrew, it is easy to misread and hence miscopy numbers, adding a power of ten. So "90" becomes "900" and "10,000" becomes "100,000", etc.

heddle is stone cold NUTS! i think i'm starting to like him... in the same way i love old cheech and chong movies, you know... heddle, you GO, man!

Wow, six months ago, Carol Clouser woulda been in here like white on rice...

In all commentaries on the quote, the commentator mentioned the meta-physical position of the church.

Metaphysical Hamburgers.

Worst band name ever

From Wikipedia: Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the nature of the world.

"Too metaphysical"?

Are not hamburgers deeply intertwined with the nature of the world?

Given that the Catholic Church and the mainstream Protestant community have accepted evolution as the way God created the millions of species

That's funny, the second hit I got stated: Given that the Catholic Church and the mainstream Protestant community have accepted evolution as the way God created the millions of species

That's funny, the second hit I got stated: Given that the Catholic Church and the mainstream Protestant community have accepted evolution as the way God created the millions of species...

Given that the Catholic Church and the mainstream Protestant community have accepted evolution as the way God created the millions of species, one wonders why the creationists still insist upon a literal reading of Genesis.

Hey, Heddle, have you ever tried reading for comprehension?

Hey, Heddle, you might want to consider the relationship between the words "God" and "theistic"

Thus, not only is creationism or "intelligent design" bad science, it is also arguably bad theology!

W. Kevin Vicklund,

who added "one wonders why the creationists still insist upon a literal reading of Genesis." to my quote from NCSE and called it evidence of quote mining:

Do you really believe that the part you added is relevant to the question of whether the NCSE post adequately explains how The RCC supports evolution--or did you just add some more of the quote and declare victory, and are now awaiting an attaboy from steve s?

W. Kevin Vicklund, who added "one wonders why the creationists still insist upon a literal reading of Genesis." to my quote from NCSE and called it evidence of quote mining: Do you really believe that the part you added is relevant to the question of whether the NCSE post adequately explains how The RCC supports evolution---or did you just add some more of the quote and declare victory, and are now awaiting an attaboy from steve s?

Do you really believe that the part you added is relevant to the question of whether the NCSE post adequately explains how The RCC supports evolution...?

Given that the Catholic Church and the mainstream Protestant community have accepted evolution as the way God created the millions of species, one wonders why Catholics still believe in God

Heddle wrote:

"No retraction, for the quote mining instances are legion---in fact you just contributed to them. The Catholic Church is fine with one species evolving into another---so are, by definition, all theistic evolutionists-so that point means exactly zip.point.oh. The Catholic Church is not "peachy" with evolution without caveat, as they have stated repeatedly and in what amounts to a quote-mining feeding frenzy gets almost universally ignored on PT."

I'm sorry but I fail to see how I contributed to this legion of quote-mining. Your whole argument is that without the caveat any quote from the 1996 Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences a person uses to claim that the Catholic Church is peachy with evolution, is a lie about how the Catholic Church really feels, and thus a quote-mine.

But didn't I quote two passages from the message showing, 1: the recognition of evolution as a legitimate scientific theory and 2: the need for metaphysical reflection in understanding the creator's plans and our special relationship to his creation? Are you saying that I failed to address the caveat about how evolution must contain a place for man's soul???

Didn't I provide a link to the entire message so you could verify whether or not I was taking those quotes out of context? And you still think I am trying to argue that the Pope endorses a godless evolution when I clearly stated that he was endorsing theistic evolution?

Your claim that PTers quote-mine is absurd since all those examples you gave didn't actually have any direct quotes from the Pope's message. Are saying they did contain quotes from the Pope's message and that PTers used his words out of context?

I in fact did use two quotes from the Pope's message and I think I represented his position quite clearly as that he supports a theistic evolution! How is this quote-mining under your definition?

And that's another thing. Your definition of quote-mining is strange. A quote-mine is taking a specific phrase from an author or speaker and using that phrase to argue for a particular point of view that mis-represents the original author's argument/idea. QUOTE-MINING IS NOT SIMPLY MAKING CONCLUSIONS BASED ON AN AUTHOR'S IDEAS. It isn't quote-mining unless the quoter deliberately twists the words of the author to mean something they clearly disagree with - as outlined from within the rest of the text. And you still think I deliberately tried to misrepresent the Pope? HOW?

It is true that the CC doesn't support an atheist's view of evolution. But if an atheist claims that the CC supports evolution it doesn't mean the atheist thinks that the CC admits that there is no god! And that is what I think you are stuck on. So, please stop associating evolution with atheism.

Let me ask you these simple questions:

1. If the Catholic Church believes in the FACT of evolution but stresses the need for god's sovereign role in that process, then how is it misrepresenting the Church to simply state, "The CC supports the theory of evolution"? Do Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins misrepresent each other when they claim the other endorses evolution?

Please address these questions.

Heddle: No retraction, for the quote mining instances are legion...

You know, once upon a time, there were creationists on the internet who were actually capable of functional discussion and debate. I used to have conversations with creationists that I did not consider utter morons.

What happened to them?

Well, I know what happened to some of them, they abandonded creationism for theistic evolution.

But, on the whole, it seems less a dying breed than a dead one. These days all you get are total incompetants like Heddle who CANNOT EVEN DIRECTLY ADDRESS A QUESTION.

I asked about the reference in the Bible to mustard seeds being the smallest of all seeds. The Bible says this. The Bible is not correct. Mustard seeds are objectively and undeniably not the smallest of all seeds. I asked how he justified this.

His answer? Warble about interpretations, while avoiding giving us any interpretations where "mustard seeds are the smallest of all seeds" means something other than "mustard seeds are the smallest of all seeds".

Trying to get a creationist like Heddle to answer questions is like trying to pull teeth from an unanesthetized patient, they just won't sit still long enough for you to get any work done!

Well, forget I asked, Heddle, as I'm sure you already have. I won't bother you with nasty questions or annoying facts anymore. I'll just sit back and enjoy the show as you pretend hamburgers with ketchup aren't really hamburgers (a brilliant metaphor, kudos).

Dave, you are having trouble coming up with instances of quote mining on this thread, and you insist that instance are legion? That's a laugh!

I asked about the reference in the Bible to mustard seeds being the smallest of all seeds. The Bible says this. The Bible is not correct. Mustard seeds are objectively and undeniably not the smallest of all seeds. I asked how he justified this. His answer? Warble about interpretations, while avoiding giving us any interpretations where "mustard seeds are the smallest of all seeds" means something other than "mustard seeds are the smallest of all seeds". Trying to get a creationist like Heddle to answer questions is like trying to pull teeth from an unanesthetized patient, they just won't sit still long enough for you to get any work done!

— Michael Suttkus, II

Coin syas:
"Anyhow, though I erred in directing objections toward you which should have been directed toward demallien, conveniently those objections happened to comprise the exact JPII message which is being summarized here. I unfortunately didn't include in my blockquote the "theories of evolution" part or the "ontological leap" part, but they can be found at the link above."

Coin, just to clarify, I'm a diehard atheist. I just feel that Pope JPII's statement is at best ambiguous support for evolution. He is explicit that humans are a special case, certainly from a spiritual point of view, and he doesn't even give an impression if being particularly sure about corporal evolution for humans either, to quote:
"if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God".
Note the smacking big "if" at the start of the quote.

Anyway, all I wanted to say is that we do need to be careful when claiming Catholic Church support for evolution. As it stands, the statement slams Intelligent Design, as Intelligent Design wants to claim design in organisms other than humans. So any discussion attacking Intelligent Design can use the statement without any problem. But to use the statement to attack creationism in general is risky. In the interest of not offering easy targets for creationists, I counsel extreme caution in using the Pope's statement.

Peter Henderson: Descartes was very sly to hide some of his opinions from the Church, and much of what he held was heretical. Moreover, he only once attended church as an adult (to acknowledge a child, as was traditional in Holland at the time). It is not too far fetched to think that he'd be an out-and-out materialist today, if he could be caught up on the latest neuroscience, which no doubt would interest him.

demallien: As I have said for quite a while, JPII was a creationist of a very specific sort - namely of humans, since he basically denies (some of) their psychological characteristics evolved.

"I think the Noahic flood was a local flood in Mesopotamia, ~50k years ago."

— David Heddle

I want to know:

How many posts does Heddle read?

It seems he picks the ones he feels are easy to argue against and ignores the rest.

He makes claims that are already disproven by posts he seems to have ignored.

Come on, Heddle. Stop quotemining and arguing strawmen.

Oh fur gawds sake Heddle

You cannot disprove that Jesus walked on water, you can only show that the laws of physics prohibit it---and so it would have to be---what's it called---oh yeah, a miracle!

Not a miracle you complete tosser just an impossibility!!

Or an hallucination

Or a bit of religio/political spin or propaganda.

Or creative writing

Or a literary allusion.

To actually get me to believe ANYBODY could walk on water without a trick, Heddle, WOULD take a miracle.

Get off the grass.

Reel 'em in Heddle.

Gee for a Calvinist you seem to be taking Catholic theology pretty damn seriously.

I thought the whole schtik of being a Protestant was to put man on an equal footing with dog.

You said:

...It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.

Well WTF do you EXPECT them to say ? Not a TAUTOLOGICAL piece of nonsense theological rambling taken seriously by no more than a few die hard real estate managers for god??

ARE YOU mad?

Who would pay the rent?

Yeah right...Ah.... dearly beloved we are gathered here today to pay homage to our father ....now pass the plate and don't skimp...the price of wine is on the way up.

"Do you accept that the origin of life did not involve an exception to the laws of Chemistry and Physics (i.e., a miracle)?"

There are dozens of times when PT contributors have stated "Rome is OK with evolution." Most of the time, they don't qualify that statement.

You cannot disprove that Jesus walked on water, you can only show that the laws of physics prohibit it

Science is hard work, that's why there are scientists and scientists; and then there is Heddle.

Okay, so since this discussion has long since ceased to resemble the original topic, I feel free to ask this equally offtopic question: What the heck exactly is meant by "Calvinist" in the modern context? I am familiar with the beliefs and writings of John Calvin himself, but as far as I knew "Calvinism" itself was just a denomination of Christianity, one linked with Puritanism and today mostly defunct. But within discussions like this one I often see "Calvinist" used as a property of Christian belief which seems to be orthogonal to denomination; for example I'm told that Howard Ahmanson "became a Calvinist" in the 70s, but also that he was apparently an Anglican this entire time (?). What exactly is someone saying today when they self-identify as "Calvinist"? What am I missing here?

Try looking up the Wiki on Calvinism. It's a bit complex, but aside from being Protestant, it is non-denominational Think pre-destination and work from there.

No, I mean... I actually was looking at that wiki article when I made my last post, and I'm still unsure how much (all?) of that applies to modern thinking about Calvinism. That looks like mostly information about historical Calvinism, and all the dates that appear in the article are centuries ago. I guess what I'm asking is, is there any substantive difference between Calvinism as practiced by Howard Ahmanson and Calvinism as practiced by John Winthrop?

Oh, hey, and look at that. The Discovery Institute finally noticed the misquote this particular thread here was originally about. They have a slightly odd take on it, interpreting a single instance of a misquote as "growing" (from zero to one, I guess?) into some kind of pandemic, but whatever.

They still don't seem to have anything to say about Kansas' elections last night, unless we count Paul Nelson's "Science isn't about having standards" blog post thing.

Hmm... It occurs to me I should not have put quotation marks around the non-quote in my last post, since it looks like I was trying to make a quote out of something which isn't and quote honesty is the entire subject of discussion here in the first place.

Oh well.

For example, if it is ever conclusively demonstrated that King Solomon never existed the entire bible would come a-tumblin' down.

— David Heddle

Isn't it generally agreed that you can't prove a negative?

Go and read the statement in it's entirety. The Pope is very clear on certain points, such as the fact that whatever happened in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is certain that HUMANS did not evolve.

those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe

Coin on your Calvinist confusion there is only one thing you need to know...as far as Heddle is concerned Calvinists or in his case Gravenistas are never wrong.

Calvinism has never really been a denomination, but rather a set of theological beliefs that are occasionally characteristic of a denomination. For instance, Presbyterians are historically fairly Calvinist, whereas Methodists are historically Arminian (the "anti-Calvinist" theology).

Calvinism is still the source of many debates in contemporary Evangelical theology, including such things as the eternal security of the believer (whether the saved can lose their salvation by losing their belief in God or some other immorality), what exactly it means to say that Christians are predestined (this one gets rather technical--suffice to say it revolves the relationship between human free-will and God's sovereignty), whether non-christians are predestined to hell (so-called "double-predestination") and a few others.

Calvin is known as perhaps the greatest systematic theologian of Protestant Christianity, and so cannot help be important to Protestant Christians today--evangelical or mainstream. My general impression is that he is better respected among mainstream denominations--although his ideas have filtered equally into both. Evangelical denomination are often slightly suspicious of systematic theology as departing too far from the Bible into something resembling philosophy.

As for someone today "becoming" a Calvinist--I suspect this means different things to different people. However, if a Christian told me that she was becoming a Calvinist, I would guess that she meant that she no longer believed in libertarian free will (at least regarding salvation). The main point would be a privileging of the power (in Calvinist talk "sovereignty") of God in such a way that humans are unable to "choose" to be saved.

What a pathetic waste of energy. It's striking how many people -- even here at PT -- insist that I must respect the views of people who "debate" whether or not I will suffer for eternity -- despite lacking nerves, neurotransmitters, or anything else that might give rise to sensation, perception, or any cognitive (or any other) function. Well, I don't respect them, nor do I respect people who respect them -- they are all, in my mind, intellectually dishonest fools, arrogant in their ignorance and their pretense of "morality", "spirituality", "awareness", "enlightenment", or any other purportedly positive attribute that they bestow upon themselves.

What a pathetic waste of energy. It's striking how many people --- even here at PT --- insist that I must respect the views of people who "debate" whether or not I will suffer for eternity --- despite lacking nerves, neurotransmitters, or anything else that might give rise to sensation, perception, or any cognitive (or any other) function. Well, I don't respect them, nor do I respect people who respect them --- they are all, in my mind, intellectually dishonest fools, arrogant in their ignorance and their pretense of "morality", "spirituality", "awareness", "enlightenment", or any other purportedly positive attribute that they bestow upon themselves.

My objection applies to anyone stupid enough to think that "physical resurrection" is coherent, or who ignores the context which was "predestined to hell" -- is hell physical, git?

that's the first time I've seen the word git applied to anyone on this blog. And I think it couldn't be applied to a more deserving person.

Oh heck, I go away for a week, and I miss Heddle's monthly delusions of divinity . . . . . .

Hey Heddle, let me remind you once again that your religious opinions are just that -- your opinions. They aren't any more authoritative or divine or godly than anyone else's. You are not God's Spokesman (c) (tm), you don't know any more about God than anyone else alive does, and no one has any good reason whatsoever to pay any more attention to your relgiious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas.

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

Your objections might apply to a "spiritual" resurrection or some other form of disembodied existence but not to a physical resurrection.

My objection applies to anyone stupid enough to think that "physical resurrection" is coherent...

...or who ignores the context which was "predestined to hell" --- is hell physical, git?

that's the first time I've seen the word git applied to anyone on this blog. And I think it couldn't be applied to a more deserving person.

There is nothing incoherent about it

...or who ignores the context which was "predestined to hell" --- is hell physical, git? Some folks seem to think so.

Comment #117296 Posted by Robert O'Brien on August 5, 2006 09:49 PM (e) | kill Ah, Steve, what would PT do without your tireless me-tooism?