Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“The Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here’s a quote from THE CHRISTIAN ORDER going back more than a decade:

The Pontifical Academy of Evolutionists

Despite being widely accepted even at the highest level in the Church, there has never been any authoritative teaching approving of evolution. Hence the reaction of the worldwide media to the Pope’s message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 25th 1996. The ambiguous phrase that evolution is “more than just a theory” was greeted with glee by the materialistic press as an official admission of the collapse, under the weight of scientific research, of the Church’s traditional beliefs in Adam and Eve and any literal sense of Genesis.(37) Yet by no stretch of wishful thinking can the Pope’s message, arguably not even written by him personally, be considered a Magisterial teaching, still less an infallible new dogma of faith, overturning previous doctrine.

If John Paul II is unaware of the contemporary crisis in the credibility of evolution, this could be related to the fact that his 80 scientific advisors in the Academy are all evolutionists, including Fr. Stanley Jaki and the atheist cosmologist Stephen Hawking. This bias must severely limit the competence of the Academy to fulfil the stated intentions of Pope Pius IX, on its foundation in 1936, “… who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research and thereby to assist him in his reflections.”(38) In his 1996 Message, John Paul reminded the Academy that the Magisterium has already made pronouncements on these matters, and cites the encyclical “Humani Generis” in which Pope Pius XII: “considered the doctrine of ‘evolutionism’ a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis.” A comparison with the text shows that the Message paraphrases the encyclical in a subtle but misleading way and omits its explicit warning that the evolution of man must not be treated as certain fact.(39) It is also difficult to believe that “the opposing hypothesis,” which remains unnamed but is presumably Special Creation, can have been given “equal investigation and in-depth study” by the Pontifical Academy if there is not one expert on Creation Science included among its members! A prudent Catholic cannot regard such pronouncements, especially in the contemporary post-Vatican II context, as of sufficient weight to overturn two millenia of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial teachings.

QUESTIONS: Why are all 80 members of the PAS evolutionists? Is the PAS self-selecting? How much say does the Holy Father have in the selection of members? How many of these members are themselves Catholic? How many are theologically sound (i.e., can say the creeds without smirking)?

Comments
Re my comment in #63: Interesting; even my comment explaining why I had suddenly stopped commenting was moderated, but then magically reappeared 48 hours later, along with almost all of the other comments I had posted (but which disappeared for 48 hours). As this thread seems to be winding down I will withhold further comment here. However, if there are forthcoming threads in which I would like to join in the discussion, I will attempt to do so.Allen_MacNeill
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Allen, If you have detailed replies that are not being expressed here, place them on your blog and they can be referenced here. About a year ago someone from ASA had a long reply that contained a few banned words that were used innocently enough but which prevented the post from getting out of moderation. We were able to post the comment piecemeal till we found the problem paragraph. So post it on you own site if you wish and reference it here. That may be the problem or it may be something else.jerry
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
---Hazel: "And I understand why you and Timmaeus would respond to R. Hernandez, whose anti-Catholicism is extreme." Timmaeus is one of my favorite commentators and I appreciate his spirit of solidarity with Catholics although I gather he is not in that fold. For my part, I am not singling out R. Martinez for censure. Frankly, I find his straight talk easier to digest and respond to than the doubletalk coming from irrational skeptics and Darwinists, which consist of nothing but deflections, obfuscations, and changing definitions. R. Martinez and I may disagree about Catholicism, but his comments are definitive enough and consistent enough to address. What I find more disconcerting are the moving targets (Darwinists) who shift their ground and reframe the issue each time I correct their errors, as if I had misunderstood their original theme. (Examples abound) Back to substance: [A] Authentic Catholicism is not pro-Darwin [B] The Divine component of the Catholic Church (Universal Magisterium) cannot be corrupted; the human component can and has been corrupted many times. [C] "Sola Scripture" is not Biblical.. [D] Christs resurrection is a matter of historical fact.StephenB
March 23, 2009
March
03
Mar
23
23
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill (#63): "Timmaeus (and others): Please forgive my failure to address your questions. I have been trying to post statements, replies, and evidence to back them up for two days now, but almost all of my comments have been moderated. If you are reading this comment, that situation may have changed. However, I find it rather dismaying to spend a great deal of time putting together cogent arguments, backed with evidence and links to sources, only to have them removed without explanation." IF TRUE, that is, IF Allen is being "moderated" (= censored) then this is wrong. Atheist-evolutionist Allen MacNeill has done nothing deserving of censorship, which is a Third World practice. In my opinion his messages convince persons that evolution is false. If Allen is being censored then I will stop posting here in protest based on principle. I will monitor the site to see in the coming days. Censorship is a pro-Darwin-Supreme Court/Federal judiciary/Judge Jones thing. Real Christians should never treat their enemies like their enemies treat them. Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist-Paleyan Designist.R. Martinez
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
sparc@40 said: I guess nobody can judge the situation for other minorities but does anybody accuse UD of discriminating women or minorities. You're missing the point. We ALREADY KNOW that Darwinism leads to vile bigotry. History has proved it again and again. Ben Stein said it best: "science leads to killing people". (Although I would qualify that by changing "science" -> "unchecked science" or "science without religion", and "people" -> "people of minority groups".) If you have some evidence that shows that ID is sexist, I would like to see it.AmerikanInKananaskis
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
Timaeus (#58): "....you continue in the same aggressive vein, speaking of the 'jaw dropping ignorance' of people who disagree with you...." The protest expressed above says it is illegitimate to point out ignorance. This is self-evidently untrue. "And at the end, speaking as if you are a teacher and I a slow student, you write, 'This is 101 stuff, come on.' This disrespectful, belittling mode of speaking is never constructive." Since you were advocating evolutionary theory to NOT have objective claims, that evolution (= Materialism) is compatible with Theism (= Ken Millerism), you are incredibly ignorant, or a slow student or even worse ("but I would rather not consider that"). I owe you---a stranger---nothing. I have behaved like a perfect gentleman. I have not used invective or argued the man. I have, like you said, aggressively made my points and your main complaint is an absence of femininity in them. You are hoping for a groundless Moderator rescue. I suggest that you man-up and respond. RayR. Martinez
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Timmaeus (and others): Please forgive my failure to address your questions. I have been trying to post statements, replies, and evidence to back them up for two days now, but almost all of my comments have been moderated. If you are reading this comment, that situation may have changed. However, I find it rather dismaying to spend a great deal of time putting together cogent arguments, backed with evidence and links to sources, only to have them removed without explanation.Allen_MacNeill
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Hi Stephen. I responded to your reply to Riddick, but I agree that this is off the subject and I agree we should take the topic no farther. And I understand why you and Timmaeus would respond to R. Hernandez, whose anti-Catholicism is extreme.hazel
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
-----Hazel: "Stephen, that Jesus raised himself from the dead is a matter of faith: it is true to the believer but false to those who aren’t of that faith. Just because that claim is made doesn’t prove that Christianity is the one true sacred tradition, and all the rest is false." Hazel, Christ’s resurrection is a matter of recorded history. The central question is and always has been, “Who moved the stone?” If he had not risen, his enemies would have provided the dead body as evidence that the apostles were lying. These were the same people that had been witnessing miracles all along and attributing them to the Devil. Notice that they didn’t deny the fact of the miracles, only their source. That, by the way, is why they sent Roman soldiers to guard his tomb. Christ had promised to raise himself from the dead, and they had hoped to put a stop to it. In that respect, Christ’s enemies had more faith than did his apostles. In any case, you and others have shifted the ground on my original point. It was not my intent to do Christian (or Catholic) apologetics; I was simply responding to anti-Catholic arguments which were founded on erroneous assumptions, nothing more. I am not pro- proselytizing; I am simply correcting errors. One blogger misunderstood Catholicism and evolution and suggested that the Catholic Church was corrupt. I tried to put that point in context by showing that the Bible cannot logically be the sole rule of faith. In responding to that point, another blogger changed the subject to comparative religion. So, I found it necessary to modify the argument to address his changing context. Now, you have introduced still another element, namely the error of reducing the facts of history to an affirmation of religious dogma. In fact, the Judeo/Christian religion is founded on history; all other religions are founded on self-proclamation. You error is in believing that Christ’s resurrection is solely a matter a faith. While you assert that “there are no tools to decide on such matters,” you fail to take account of the best tool of all----reason itself. Also, you labor under the assumption that all articles of faith are solely matters of faith and nothing more. It many cases, they are; in many other cases they are not. Christ’s tomb was occupied for three days and then it was empty. It is still empty. That is a fact. You would be surprised at how many skeptics will deny even the most obvious facts. Some even claim that Christ did not exist in time/space/history. Others simply hope that is the case, which explains why they changed the calendar references from B.C.—A.D. to B.C.E and A.C.E. Rewriting history is one of the skeptics’ favorite activities. I am well aware that many who embrace other belief systems do indeed reject any possibility that they could be wrong. That is irrational. We all have doubts. The difference is this: Only psychotics are immune from doubt just as only neurotics are immune from belief. That is why all arguments for and against every belief system ought to be subjected to the test of reason. There is no better tool that than. You assume that since some zealots exhibit unjustified certitude there can be no such thing as justified certitude. That assumption is erroneous.StephenB
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Stephen, that Jesus raised himself from the dead is a matter of faith: it is true to the believer but false to those who aren't of that faith. Just because that claim is made doesn't prove that Christianity is the one true sacred tradition, and all the rest is false. There are no tools for us collectively to decide religions have true metaphysical belief. One can choose to believe in the dogma of a particular religion as an act of faith, but choosing to believe as an act of faith is not the same as establishing the truth of something. Others who choose to believe different religions are just as sure for themselves as you are sure for yourself, and there is no objective way to decide if anyone (or no one) is right.hazel
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
At this very moment I read in the Catholic newspaper in Western Australia an article which reports that the Vatican (via a spokesperson) says (in brief) that the theory of evolution is "science", intelligent design is "faith" not science. Obviously ID has a long way to go as a scientific theory if its most likely supporter rejects it's basis as "science".deric davidson
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
R. Martinez (#53): I accept the apology. Note, however, that after apologizing, you continue in the same aggressive vein, speaking of the “jaw dropping ignorance” of people who disagree with you (whether that is meant for me, or the Catholic Church, or both, I’m not sure). And at the end, speaking as if you are a teacher and I a slow student, you write, “This is 101 stuff, come on.” This disrespectful, belittling mode of speaking is never constructive. Fortunately, my feelings are not that easily bruised, and I will not ask for any further personal apology, but you have a bigger apology still to make, to Catholics who might have been offended by this: “The Reform[a]tion said the Pope and the Vatican were totally corrupt. Nothing has changed.” This implies that the Pope and the Vatican are still “totally corrupt”. You still refuse to withdraw this remark. You do not even seem to grasp how insulting it is. And yes, I know that you did not target the average Catholic with the remark (though you did target the Pope, who is not just an abstract office but a Catholic individual); nonetheless, you issued a blanket, absolute condemnation of institutions that Catholics hold dear. Unless you can prove that these institutions are “corrupt”, this is nothing less than a gratuitous insult. It is still a form of Catholic-bashing. It is perhaps possible that you do not know the meaning of the word “corrupt”, that you do not realize how deep and hurtful a charge it is. It is possible that you think that “corrupt” means simply “theologically liberal” or “intellectually faulty in doctrine”, or “morally imperfect”, or “religiously flawed”. If so, you need to avail yourself of several good dictionaries and thesauruses, and try to get the feel of this word. And then, once you know what the word means, you should either prove the corruption charge, or retract the claim, with apologies to any Catholic readers who might have been offended by it. Even if no one was actually offended, the sheer love of truth demands a retraction, since the claim is false. As for your remarks about evolution, intelligent design, and so forth, while many of them are correct, others are wrong or misleading, due to your lack of knowledge of the primary sources and/or your lack of terminological precision. However, I will not take the time to explain your errors, or discuss evolution or ID with you again, on this or any other thread, until I see an unambiguous and apologetic retraction of the above anti-Catholic comment. I don’t want to harp on this subject any more, and will not return to it again. T.Timaeus
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
..."there are lots of “sacred” traditions out there. How do you know that yours is the correct one?" Do you know of any other "sacred traditions" that were started by someone who claimed to be God, identified himself as "the truth," and then raised himself from the dead?StephenB
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
StephenB, there are lots of "sacred" traditions out there. How do you know that yours is the correct one?riddick
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Oh dear, it appears that I must revisit this site to explain Catholicism’s position on evolution and a few other things. Officially: Pope Pius X is the only pope to speak about it in an official capacity, meaning that he is the only one to raise the issue in an encyclical (Humani Generis). What he said was this: Catholics may not believe in materialistic evolution, meaning that IF they accept macro evolution, (and they need not), they must accept the proposition that God creates the human soul directly and not through a naturalistic process. That means that Catholics may NOT believe in unguided macro-evolution. Further, they must also affirm that we were preceded by SINGULAR first parents (Adam and Eve), which means that current versions of theistic evolution, many of which posit multiple first parents, are also forbidden. Unofficially: Pope John Paul II did seem a little more open to macro-evolution than was Pius X, but he too insisted that Catholics may not propose materialistic unguided evolution. His famous statement that it is “more than a theory,” referred to guided evolution only and did not, in any way, support Dawkins’ position. Benedict XVI, on the other hand, takes a position much closer to that of Pope Pius X, saying outright that Darwinism has NOT been proven. Further, he even spoke of an “intelligent project,” which clearly argues against the ridiculous atheistic idea that design is an illusion. Is there corruption in the Catholic Church? To answer that question, one must first understand the Church’s composition. For Catholics, the Church is BOTH Divine and human. It is “Divine” insofar as it has been given the task of teaching the truth and leading souls infallibly toward the way of sanctification. In that context, it cannot be corrupted. No teaching has ever changed in over two thousand years. It is “human” insofar as it is populated by sinners who often violate its teachings and shame its founder. In that context, it has been corrupted several times, sometimes seriously. In fact, The Catholic Church has fallen to great lows and risen to great heights throughout history. In the fourth century, it almost fell under the weight of the Arian heresy. The situation was so bad at one time that the majority of the bishops had embraced the very doctrine that they had been commissioned to contend against. Many of them appeared to have lost their faith. Still, one man, St. Athanasius, almost single-handedly rescued the Church and brought it back to sanity. Something similar happened in the tenth century with the East-West split, and again, five hundred years later during the time of the reformation. The Catholic Church is always falling down and always getting back up. Even so, there is no getting around the fact that, by a country mile, it has done more for the world than any other institution. Yes, it has had its flaws, abuses, and even outrages, but for every corrupt pope you can name, and there were a few, I can show you ten more who became saints who died as martyrs. I can also show you thousands of everyday Catholics who rose to the level of heroic virtue. When I say “saint,” I am not talking about “nice” people who know how to hold their cup at tea time. I am talking about men who were both strong enough to become warrior King’s and humble enough to clean bed pans for lepers; reformers who slept one hour a night for decades while converting whole nations to Christianity; mystics who prayed sixteen hours a day and bore Christ’s wounds on their hands and feet as a means of compensating for the sins of the world. You might also be interested to know that the Catholic Church was not slack in making the world a more livable place. For starters, it launched the modern science project and built a little thing called Western Civilization. If you would like to confirm that, consult a few responsible scholars who don’t have a chip on their shoulder. (Two good people to begin with would be Rodney Stark and Thomas Woods. They don’t whitewash anything.) You might also be interested to know that the Catholic Church wrote the very same scriptures that you are trying to use as your main weapon of attack. Were you under the impression that this book just fell out of the sky? This up and down cycle continues to this day. During the 1950’s the Catholic Church was a positive moral force to be reckoned with and even put the fear of God into Hollywood. Whenever a good institution starts accomplishing things, bad people do their best to destroy it. If they can’t do it from the outside, they will infiltrate it and try to get the job done on the inside. Today, the Church has been compromised in exactly that way and is indeed in the middle of its most serious crisis. Perhaps most noticeable is its recent tendency to de-emphasize its universal teachings (they never change), take the easy road, and look for ways to fit in with the world. That is why some U.S. Bishops (not all) have neglected Catholic seminaries and Catholic universities. It is also why many church leaders tolerated illegal immigration, remained silent in the face of sex scandals, and allowed this ridiculous conference on evolution. Yes, we can also throw in those misguided sycophants who think that Christ’s teachings can be reconciled with Darwin’s materialism. Even at this low point, however, Catholics still probably do more good than harm. One thing all anti-Catholics must explain: How did such an evil institution last for over two thousand years? How is it that it was on the brink of death three other times, and rose to become stronger than ever? If it wasn’t Divine, it would have gone under long ago. Right now, the human side is having its day, but, just as in that past, a few saints will rescue it and restore it to its original beauty. That is the way it has always been and always will be until the end of time. With regard to the comment on "sola Scriptura," there is an equally egregious misunderstanding. The idea of the "Bible alone" (sola scriptura) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible speaks of an infallible Sacred Tradition and an infallible Church that has authority to interpret Scripture. -----"[O]n this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:18-19). -----"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). -----"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2). -----"[W]hen you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers" (1 Thess. 2:13). -----"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). -----"[I]f I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:14-15). Sola Scriptura is a man-made invention. The whole idea obviously refutes itself. If “sola scriptura” is the rule of faith, then we should not accept it since it is not in the Bible. On the contrary, according to the Bible, it is the Church which is “the bulwark of the truth.” According to the Bible, Christians are to accept BOTH Sacred Tradition and the written Scriptures as the infallible word of God.StephenB
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
R. Martinez: "Why would the Catholic Church object to a Divine Foot in their door?" Well, I think it's because the Catholic heirarchy does something that is rather peculiar - they separate faith issues from issues of science - as if there need be a separation. And this is precisely why IDists in general get accused of being Creationists - their opponents fail to see them separating faith from reason. This is because they don't. Faith is compatible with reason. Darwinists are ok with people of faith as long as those people acknowledge that their faith is not reasonable. Most serious Bible-believing Christians are not willing to allow that separation. It appears that when one calls themselves a Christian but does not think seriously about their theology and its implications, it's quite easy to believe anything that does not conform to reason. This is how heresy begins. It is a separation of faith from reason. This is what the early Church fought against. Post Modernism has also had a strong influence on modern Christianity, and people accept "spirituality" for spirituality's sake, even if their given spirituality does not conform to reason. And there are others who believe that the only virtuous spirituality is that which does not conform to reason. Given the unorthodox doctrines that spill out of the Catholic Church like holy water, it's easy to see how theological reasonableness has been flooded out of the church, leaving it vulnerable to "every wind of doctrine," even if it is counter to Christian doctrine. This is not an attack on Catholics per say, as I know some very good Catholic Christians - but the heirarchy of Catholicism has never had its mandate directly from God as it claims, and this is where I think the error begins. Without "sola scriptura" it is easy to stray from orthodoxy. The only true Christian authority is scripture itself, and it is scripture that opposes the doctrines of Darwinism.CannuckianYankee
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
Timaeus (#51): "We seem to have different notions of what a Christian is. I was brought up to believe that when Christians correct each other, it should be in the tone of loving mutual admonishment. I tried to adopt this tone in pointing out that some of your language could be taken as aggressive Protestant- boosting and partisan Catholic-bashing, even if you did not intend it in that way." I agree that Christians are obligated to be kind to one another and to speak the truth in love. In other words we are to treat others how Christ has treated us. You did not comply. You presupposed Catholic-bashing on my part, which is a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said. Legitimate criticism is not bashing. I attacked position and the institution, not the man or the congregation. I have also extended my criticism to include Protestantism. "Your Christian response to my gentle admonishment was this: 'My quote needs no explanation or interpretation to anyone who is not mentally challenged.'" Okay....I should have not said as such. I should have said that you had made a mistake. I apologize. Your mistake is shown below: Message #50: "Timaeus (#47): So the pronoun ‘we’ referred to you and William Dembski? And the reader was supposed to infer that, without explanation? [Ray Martinez:] Since I was replying to William Dembski and since he is a well known Protestant, of course [see #32]." "The position of the Roman Church is that it is permissible (not mandatory, but permissible) for Roman Catholics to believe in various hypotheses of biological evolution, provided that the evolutionary process is understood to be, at least in certain key respects, guided by God." Can you support this claim? "Dawkins....denies that the evolutionary process is guided by anything...." That is the number one objective claim of evolutionary theory since it was accepted in 1859. You do not seem to understand that the concept of "evolution" presupposes natural or material causation. Natural-material means that God or supernatural is absent and not involved. IF God is INvolved with biological production we already have terms that designate: Creationism-ID. To say one can (subjectively) believe anything about evolution reveals jaw dropping ignorance since the concept was accepted as not being guided by Mind. Again, IF Mind is involved with biological production this is called Creationism or Intelligent design. The whole point of evolution since 1859 is that God is not involved. Once God is accepted as having a role IN biological production the same is also called Theism. Darwinism presupposes Deism-Atheism (= no role for God). This is 101 stuff, come on. RayR. Martinez
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill (#26): You wrote: "So, anyone want to try to explain how an organization that contains not one evolutionary biologist (and is apparently low on biologists in general) is biased toward “evolutionists”?" Allen, you're being just plain silly. You know perfectly well that the overwhelming majority of biologists, in all fields of biology, not just "evolutionary biology", supports neo-Darwinian evolution, so any selection of biologists, unless it takes care to consciously ensure a balance of views (for example, by inviting Behe and Denton to join the panel), is going to be biased in favour of neo-Darwinism. But while we're on the subject of allegedly important specializations within biology, I'd like to lodge a complaint (though I'm not hopeful that you'll break your streak of refusing to answer my posts). Often critics of ID have complained that Behe has no business writing about evolution because he is "only a molecular biologist" and not an "evolutionary biologist". Yet I have never heard a single critic of ID complain that Ken Miller has no business writing about evolution because he is "only a cell biologist" and not an "evolutionary biologist". And I've never heard them complain that Eugenie Scott is "only an anthropologist" or that Barbara Forest is "only a philosopher" or that Robert Pennock is "only a philosopher and computer scientist" or that Jason Rosenhouse is "only a mathematician" or that Brian Alters is "only a general biologist and education theorist" or that Nick Matzke is "only a geographer" (his highest degree to date being a Master's in geography). There is a double standard operating here, no? T.Timaeus
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
R. Martinez (#49): We seem to have different notions of what a Christian is. I was brought up to believe that when Christians correct each other, it should be in the tone of loving mutual admonishment. I tried to adopt this tone in pointing out that some of your language could be taken as aggressive Protestant- boosting and partisan Catholic-bashing, even if you did not intend it in that way. Your Christian response to my gentle admonishment was this: "My quote needs no explanation or interpretation to anyone who is not mentally challenged." I cannot think that this is the manner in which Jesus would have wanted his disciples to talk to each other. However, since, on a number of occasions, on several threads at UD, you have shown a propensity to talk to other Christians in this insulting way, I think the best thing for me to do is to give up this conversation, and leave you to your conscience, and to remind you that one of the Christian virtues is humility, and also that some of Jesus's harshest words were directed against whoever would call his brother "fool" -- a word which is reminiscent of the phrase "mentally challenged". Just for the record, I wish to deny a claim which, in various posts, you have strongly intimated (even if you have never made it explicitly). The Church of Rome has never accepted "the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins fanatically promotes". The position of the Roman Church is that it is permissible (not mandatory, but permissible) for Roman Catholics to believe in various hypotheses of biological evolution, provided that the evolutionary process is understood to be, at least in certain key respects, guided by God. Dawkins, on the other hand, insists that evolution is not just a permissible hypothesis but a certain fact, and he denies that the evolutionary process is guided by anything; further, he denies the existence of God. You are free to reject any form of evolution at all, if you wish, and you are free to criticize the Roman Church for permitting belief in evolution even in a carefully qualified sense; but to say or even intimate that the Roman position is the same as Dawkins's is to promote a falsehood. Whether this falsehood proceeds from a lack of knowledge of the relevant Church documents on your part, or from some animus connected with your unretracted statement that the Catholic Church is "corrupt", or from some other cause, I cannot say. T.Timaeus
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Timaeus (#47; quoting Ray Martinez): "This is why we are Protestants.” My quote needs no explanation or interpretation to anyone who is not mentally challenged. I made a serious mistake by answering your "question" the first time. The remainder of your very long winded post literally makes no sense based on the obvious fact that you are in a state of rage caused by the inability to address or refute anything that I actually said. I will repeat: any Church, Catholic or Protestant, or any Christian (includes the Pope) who accepts the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins fanatically promotes, is a Judas (or horribly ignorant) since the objective claims of evolution presuppose the veracity of Materialism (= Atheism) and Biblical falsity. RayR. Martinez
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Madsen (#46): "How about Christians who accept that life is billions of years old, that common descent is true, etc., but who still believe God steps in to do some designing every so often? Are they under the direct control of Satan?" Any Christian who accepts the concept of "common descent" (= ancestry) is also accepting the concept of "evolution." This means they are either horribly ignorant or under the direct control of Satan since the objective claims of both concepts presuppose the absence of God from reality and the utter falsity of Genesis 1 and 2. IF God is NOT involved with biological production the same is called Darwinism (evolution, natural selection, common ancestry; God-didn't-do-it). IF God IS involved with biological production the same is called Creationism (God-did-it). Again, why would any Christian accept the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins accepts and not the Biblical explanation? I have answered this question (see msg.#45). RayR. Martinez
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
R. Martinez (#44): So the pronoun “we” referred to you and William Dembski? And the reader was supposed to infer that, without explanation? I doubt very much that everyone picked that up. I suggest to you that it would have been clearer if you had written: “... that is why you and I, Dr. Dembski, are Protestants.” But leaving that complaint aside, back on Feb. 22, when you were again making a remark about Catholic teaching, you wrote: “The Reform[a]tion said the Pope and the Vatican were totally corrupt. Nothing has changed. This is WHY we are Protestants.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/an-open-challenge-to-neo-darwinists-what-would-it-take-to-falsify-your-theory/ Did “we” there also refer to you and William Dembski? Or did it refer to you and someone else? Or was it perhaps the “royal we”? And whether it was Dr. Dembski or someone else or the “royal we”, how did you expect the reader to infer your meaning in that case? I am trying to stress, Mr. Martinez, that the pronoun “we”, when used in conversation on the internet with a group of people who do not know each other personally, does not automatically have a clear antecedent. I for one would appreciate it if you would not use “we” again without explicit identification of the included parties, especially since I (and, I suspect, many other posters here, including many other Protestants) do not want to be part of your “we”. As for your statement that “the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world”, it was stated without qualification. If you had added “with respect to the theory of evolution”, your statement would have been less offensive (though it would have remained very contestable, as it would still impute motivation, the inference of which is generally debatable). But you did not qualify the statement in any way. You therefore left it open to be taken as a general statement about the attitude of the Catholic Church toward “the world”, and followed it up with an apparently favourable reference to Protestants. Possibly you did not see how such a juxtaposition might appear to potential readers of your remark. Possibly you did not see that it could easily be taken to mean: “Catholics sell out to worldly values, but we Protestants stand fast for truly Christian beliefs”. If you did not foresee this interpretation, then take it as a piece of friendly advice (from someone who has been teaching writing skills to university students for 30 years now) that you need to be more careful in your expression. I would not hesitate to give most UD commenters the benefit of the doubt in such cases. However, your attitude toward the Catholic Church is in doubt, since your earlier statement, which you have never retracted, inescapably implied that the Roman Church is currently (not just back in the Reformation days, but still now) “corrupt”. Corruption is a serious moral and spiritual charge. It should not be levelled without evidence. I do not believe John Paul II was “corrupt” when he issued his apparent endorsement of (guided) evolution. He may have been making a theoretical error, but we all make theoretical errors, and such errors do not make us “corrupt”. Further, the fact that you coupled the charge of current Catholic corruption with the words “that is WHY we are Protestants” could easily be taken to suggest the partisan view that only Protestants are serious about fighting corruption. I would urge you to be somewhat more cautious in your language when making generalizations about forms of Christianity which are not your own. The general social rule, when speaking critically of the faiths of others, is to employ understatement. I suspect that this is a hard rule for you to observe, but I recommend that you try to do so. T.Timaeus
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
The Bible explains everything.
And before the bible? Was nothing explained? And in countries where the bible is not a popular book? How do they get by? That's something of an extreme view you've got there Ray!George L Farquhar
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Ray, How about Christians who accept that life is billions of years old, that common descent is true, etc., but who still believe God steps in to do some designing every so often? Are they under the direct control of Satan?madsen
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
CannuckianYankee (#42): "You can’t have that secular scientific prestige while allowing the 'Creatiists' [sic] to bring their 'divine foot in the door.'" Why would the Catholic Church object to a Divine Foot in their door? This is why I said earlier that the Catholic Church is seeking to please and placate the world. My point applies equally to any Protestant Church as well. Any Church or any Christian who accepts Darwinism (= Materialism), for any reason, that is, the same theory that Richard Dawkins fanatically promotes, is a Judas. And the Bible is clear: Judas did what he did while under the direct control of Satan. Now we know how and why "Christians" could accept the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins accepts and not the Biblical explanation. The Bible explains everything. RayR. Martinez
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Timaeus (#41): "[R. Martinez:] Because the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world; this is why we are Protestants." Timaeus (#41): "1. Please specify exactly whom you are referring to as 'we'." Dr. Dembski and I. "2. Please provide documentation, i.e., written statements of doctrine and policy by official spokesmen for the Church of Rome, to prove that 'the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world'." The evidence in this context is a Pontifical Academy consisting entirely of Evolutionists and Atheists. You need to pay attention to the basic facts of this topic that have already been established. RayR. Martinez
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill (#35): "Who’s 'we', Ray?" Dr. Dembski and I and all other Protestants? "I seem to recall that at least one of the moderators is Catholic; what’s up with that, Ray?" I recall the same. I see nothing wrong with having moderators who are Cathlolic, Allen. RayR. Martinez
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Interesting. It's no surprise that all 80 are Darwinists - for the same reason that most biologists in secular American Protestant colleges that started out Christian are Darwinists as well. Does Baylor ring a bell? OK, maybe not all of them are, but a significant majority are. You can't have that secular scientific prestige while allowing the "Creatiists" to bring their "divine foot in the door."CannuckianYankee
March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
R. Martinez (#29): You wrote: *** William A. Dembski: “QUESTIONS: Why are all 80 members of the PAS evolutionists?” [R. Martinez:] Because the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world; this is why we are Protestants. ***************** 1. Please specify exactly whom you are referring to as "we". 2. Please provide documentation, i.e., written statements of doctrine and policy by official spokesmen for the Church of Rome, to prove that "the Catholic Church seeks to please and placate the world". T.Timaeus
March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
AmerikanInKananaskis, I may be wrong but I get the impression that at least women are very under-represented at web sites discussing ID. I guess nobody can judge the situation for other minorities but does anybody accuse UD of discriminating women or minorities.sparc
March 20, 2009
March
03
Mar
20
20
2009
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply