Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Pope for sound stewardship

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Pope Benedict XVI has formally challenged governments to address the moral issue of placing humanity above the environment. He calls for political decisions to be based on sound science, not political agendas. His challenge to sound science over ideological pressures parallels issues in the origins debate. Note particularly the parallels between differing presuppositions versus consequences of Darwinism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism. The Pope’s message highlights the importance of sound science in following the truth wherever the data leads, versus political environmental movements with explicit or implicit agendas diverging from or running contrary to the data.
———————–

UPDATE: The Pope’s message advocates responsible stewardship based on prudent policies undistorted by ideological pressures. The post title was changed to reflect the Pope’s emphasis compared to the news article below.
See source: MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE WORLD DAY OF PEACE 1 JANUARY 2008.
See especially: The family, the human community and the environment, Sections 7, 8.

For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. . . . Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. . . . One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth’s energy resources. . . .

See full message.
———————–

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom

By SIMON CALDWELL Last updated at 14:48pm on 12th December 2007
“Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind. . . . ” See Full Article

Comments
Joseph D'Hippolito has a good followup editorial: The Pope vs. Global Warming The politicization of science has serious consequences that hinder finding the truth: [St. Paul/Minneapolis archbishop] "Flynn’s dogmatism reflects the totalitarian attitude of his fellow activists. Skeptical scientists are called “deniers” and treated as if they were denying the historicity of the Holocaust. Worse, they are increasingly unable to procure research funding."
“Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse,” Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, told Toronto’s Financial Post in February. “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.” On the other hand, the Financial Post reported that American scientists who support the hype receive $1.7 billion in grants every year.
Some evidence not being heard:
“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming,” Evans said. “We have the missing (human) signature (in the atmosphere), we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years.”
"Dr. Vincent Gray, a climatologist who reviewed all of the IPCC’s drafts since the panel was formed in 1990 and who shares a Nobel Prize awarded to the panel, was even more emphatic:"
“All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails. It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics.”
And yet the UN FCC supertanker was refueled in Bali and is proceeding with incredible inertia! This has amazing parallels with the politicization and funding of evolution vs seeking the full truth.DLH
December 18, 2007
December
12
Dec
18
18
2007
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Actually, I have never read ID books from the 'standard' IDists (Dembski, Behe, Wells, Denton etc) So, I have a major reading assignment :) I have Spetner's Not By Chance and ReMine's Biotic Message. I'm not a 'standard' guy so I'll probably read Sanford's book next.ari-freedom
December 15, 2007
December
12
Dec
15
15
2007
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
ari-freedom, This site may help understand the implausibility of evolution from the information standpoint. Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA By William A. Dembski, Michael Ruse http://books.google.com/books?id=xh1gLrO8OfoC&pg=PA375&lpg=PA375&dq=cells+types+cambrian&source=web&ots=QO9ZfXzdxR&sig=ufH1BQXPg8yNddp7N2QYXaXbOHEbornagain77
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Jerry, there is a reason why global warming is on an ID blog. Both camps like to switch back and forth between 2 claims. First, environmentalists will claim that humans are causing global warming. When it turns out that there is no global warming, they switch to the second claim that humans are causing 'climate change.' Heads I win, tails you lose. The first claim, that they can explain an upward trend, is the hook.ari-freedom
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
ari-freedom, I suggest you come up with a definition of evolution. The official one of neo Darwinism and used in biology is a change in the allele frequency of a population over time. Despite what neo Darwinism claims, evolution has a direction. While some species persist for tens of millions of years without any visible change others appear and the new ones seem more sophisticated. The number of cell types for example has gone from about 30-40 during the Cambrian Explosion to about 220 today. Each new cell type represents a new capability for the organism. So there is two ways to look at evolution. Find your own way but don't beg the question of what causes it by your definiton. This really should be not part of this thread since it is on the pope and global warming.jerry
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
The dictionary definition of evolution: 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. 2. a. The process of developing. b. Gradual development. 3. Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.tribune7
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
ari-freedom, If you stick around here a while, you will see that not only is evolution preposterous on first glance, it is also preposterous on all levels of evidence that are scrutinized.bornagain77
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Evolution means "change over time"? That's a pretty vacuous definition. We already know from the 2nd law of thermodynamics that everything will change over time...towards maximum entropy. I should point out that the global warmers pull off a similar trick. oh it's now cold? well aha you see the real problem is "climate change" I find it very hard to believe that an ape could give birth to a human being. How? Immaculate conception? And even if it could, I doubt that such a "freak" would last very long, let alone take over a population.ari-freedom
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Just so everyone knows, I just checked the banned list and ellazimm was added to it by one of the other moderators. Anyway, to answer the question: One of the central tenets of the "modern synthesis of evolutionary biology" as celebrated in 1959 was the idea that macroevolution and microevolution were essentially the same process. That is, macroevolution was simply microevolution extrapolated over deep evolutionary time, using the same mechanisms and with essentially the same effects. A half century of research into macroevolution has shown that this is not the case. As such, Darwinism does not have exclusive positive evidence for any mechanism to explain evolution, and scientists are in the middle of formulating a new hypothesis, while ID has exclusive positive evidence that intelligence is capable of producing such mechanisms. In addition, ID also has the design detection method EF, which also provides exclusive positive evidence for ID since it has never produced a false positive (and if it has it should be simple to provide an example along with the relevant calculations). There's also IC. I could go on but it's rather obvious at this point that ID has exclusive positive evidence for it while Darwinism does not. And, no, universal common descent is not exclusive positive evidence for Darwinism since UCD is also compatible with ID. Patrick
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Arifreeom, get real Evolution means "change over time" period. And global warming is a bunch of BS. Once again, the world will get a lot warmer than it is today eventually, as well as it will get a lot colder eventually and neither change has any correlation with human activity. If weak evidence was really a substitute for really important dangerous "possible" challenges - then we need to start spending millions of dollars building a device and deployment system to take out giant asteroids because they are bound to hit the earth probabilistically in the future and will cause massive extinctions. No one though is talking about those asteroids or meteors because the research grants aren’t as big and you cant use them to wage war on the industrial sector all the while making huge bucks forcing everyone to change to worthless expensive green economic vehicles and energy technologies.Frost122585
December 14, 2007
December
12
Dec
14
14
2007
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
Evolution *means* that there must be a natural mechanism in order to infer descent.ari-freedom
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
ellazimm, How many times do we have to tell you before it sinks in. Evolution happened. Few here are denying that. What is undetermined is the mechanism for the appearance of new species. There is no evidence supporting any specific mechanism including gradualism or ID. One has to come to a conclusion based on the forensic evidence available. Gradualism as an explanation except for trivial stuff is untenable because it predicts a massive number of intermediary forms and constant pressure to create new species but none have been found. What has been found is always massive discontinuities. The most persuasive evidence for each position is negative evidence against each of the other positions. Since gradualism proclaims a specific mechanism for new species, one that would leave lots of traces during life's history and there is no evidence, then it can be ruled out immediately. All Darwin saw was the trivial and no one since has seen anything but the trivial. Hence gradualism is a bust. The argument for ID is based on probabilities. No natural process has been able to create the specified complexity seen in life except for an intelligent process, the logical conclusion is that until shown otherwise an intelligent process was involved in life's origin. Believe what you want but there is no empirical evidence for a naturalistic process at the moment. Whether one will eventually show up will be in the pudding but as of the moment none exist nor are there any good prospects but you can still have faith that some day there will be one. Keep the faith.jerry
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
The global warming is a bit different than the ID debate. If global warming is true then the world may be doomed. If global warming turns out to be false then a lot of money would be wasted. There's a sense of fear and immediate urgency and that tends to lower the bar for actual evidence.ari-freedom
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Off topic: absolutely amazing christmas lights show http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1595094461661526393&q=amazing+christmas&total=1852&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9 Amazing Christmas Lights; Reflections http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4859437670974008297&q=amazing+christmas&total=1852&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7bornagain77
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
UN Climate Change Conference based on flawed science and economics Skeptical scientists have challenged both the scientific foundations for the UN FCC in Bali, and the economics of the proposed solutions. Don't fight, adapt We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change In an open letter to the UN and heads of states, 100 scientists and economists have challenged the current science and proposed strategy. These foundational issues parallel ID - what to do when scientists believe the majority is wrong on the science, and/or when the proposed solutions (e.g. Elementary Darwinism only public education) are believed to be counterproductive.DLH
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
All of the physical evidence, at the very least, does not contradict evolution. The physical evidence cited to support evolution cis what? The fossil record? The molecular clock? The fossil record does not show gradual change of one species into another, rather it shows entire new species appearing out whole cloth. The molecular clock was predicated on a constant DNA replication error rate across all species. That has been found to be untenable. But when these things fail there is always a rationalization as to why they do and the theory still has to be true.tribune7
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
I think that GW is one of those things that people are just not looking at reasonably. First you have to subtract almost all of the media mention the "theory" gets because the media’s scientific method is "if it bleeds it reads." Then you need to realize that 99.9% of all people who believe in it have no reason to because they are just merely repeating what someone else has said and have no scientific credentials at all. That leaves us with the scientific community which is by and large dependent on grants and loans for studying this "phenomena" that has been going on sense the dawn of time. And right here is over 19 thousand educated people who reject the argument- http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htmFrost122585
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
Bah, religious left. Kind of like communist entrepreneur...Nochange
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
PlatosPlaything, I am not sure why you are confusing global warming by mixing it with mysogyny, and with the funny hats, because the latter two have nothing to do with this topic. This could be some sort of stupid provocation, but just in case it isn't, I will answer. (I have serious doubts about you being a committed design theorist, if you are, prove it.) This forum is wisely continuing to pursue global warming as bad science and pseudo-science, because it is interested in exposing this sort of "quasi-reasoning" and propaganda as fallacious. So thank you DaveScott for pursuing this and finding interesting links and facts. (I wanted to express my kudos in an earlier thread, but couldn't because of the Posting Too Quickly server error.) After all, this pseudo-scientific hoax will have huge consequences similar in scale to Darwinism being showed down our throats. But, since you mentioned them, allow me to briefly address your misconceptions by knocking the funny hat off your head. The pope, Jesus, and the Catholic Church do not hate women. The proof is in all those multitudes of women who understand this rather simple proposition and willingly go to churches all around the world to pray. In fact, those who understand this, understand it because Christianity has been the only social force that has truly dignified women and freed them from male domination. No other culture or religion has done that. For example, Hindus abort their girls because they don't value them. Or Muslims would rather put their women into harems, and generally treat women with harem mentality. And all the modern secularist freedoms of liberated "Playboys" have liberated women to be just sex objects in porn magazines, strip-clubs, filthy movies and brothels. If a "Mother Earth" feminist who calls herself a Plaything is attacking the Church by trying to knock the pope's hat off, and by accusing Christians of stealing feminist cults, it only shows how ignorant and confused she is. BTW, if Earth is like your "mother", why is she so cruel to us? Have you ever wondered why this "mother" is killing her children on a massive scale by all sorts of natural catastrophes, from hurricanes to ice storms to forest fires?rockyr
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
bornagain77 at 24 The key difference on the "fire from salt water" is if this is just transforming electromagnetic to chemical energy (of microwaves to plasma to split water into hydrogen and oxygen), or if this is actually leveraging nuclear energy. cf. "cold fusion" or in this case "warm fusion". If anyone finds evidence that the energy out/conventional energy in is > 100%, please let us know. i.e., indicating a fusion type event. Otherwise I will assume it is not and that the above energy efficiency analysis still applies. Its a neat demonstration of energy conversion, but does not appear to be a source of "unlimited" "free" energy. See the following links: Directory:John Kanzius Produces Hydrogen from Salt Water Using Radio Waves Salt water fuel gets major university review Fire from seawater claim lights up the web Until there is potential to generate hydrogen with this method for less than $1/kg (~ $1 / gallon gasoline equivalent, or ~ $8/GJ), lets not waste further time on this. Lets get back to issues of ideological driven hasty decisions being made at the UN FCC in Bali etc. compared to ideologically driven decisions made for Darwinism and against ID and how to deal with them.DLH
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Off topic: Sorry for the off topicness of this, but I just read a report which seems to indicate Saturn's rings are as old as the solar system, and they remain as rings because the particles keep crashing into each other and re-dispersing. This struck me as odd. The planets themselves were supposedly created within a "ring" by coalescing into, well, planets. To the young-earthers out there, aren't Saturn's rings sometimes cited to support a "young" solar system?shaner74
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Some of the same sources of this pollution (gasoline cars and coal power) are also deemed to be part of the global warming problem. Right. And the same crowd that is screeching about global warming has been fighting the implementation of these sources -- nuclear power, telecommuting (in the U.S. it would benefit from OSHA and tort reforms) -- for as long as I can remember. Further, this same crowd wants to rip down hydroelectic dams. Further, this same crowd wants to turn freeways into turnpikes with traffic snarling toll booths. Based on this I deduce that GW is a political ploy to gain power rather than a crisis.tribune7
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Mike Elzinga posted the following comment over at The Panda’s Thumb on one of the discussion threads. I repost it since it shows the spin Darwinists are putting on various activities and because it seems inline with the current discussion (what type of news or topics are relevant to ID).
It doesn’t require a federal judge to figure out if ID/Creationism is a science or not. Anyone can go through the list of activities of the ID/Creationists and pseudo-scientists and compare them to the activities of working scientists. Do typical working scientists engage in the following activities when advancing new ideas? Do they pitch them to naive audiences while complaining they can’t get a fair hearing in the science community? Do they form institutes that spend millions of dollars to crank out propaganda pushing their idea and criticizing the scientific community? Do they issue talking points to grass-roots organizations and political groups to be argued in churches and local newspapers around the country? Do they publish books on their ideas in the popular press and claim they are peer-reviewed? Do they encourage grass-roots organizations to elect sympathetic politicians to state and federal legislative bodies? Do they have these politicians slipping stealth riders into bills requiring the advancement of their ideas to children in public schools? Do they have teams of lawyers figuring ways to advance the idea without breaking the law? Do they elect members to local school boards and state boards of education to press the idea into specific classes in public schools? Do these board members provoke law suits in order to get a court declaration on the constitutionality of the idea and whether or not it is a science? Do they challenge members of the scientific community to debates and bus in hecklers from surrounding churches to help support the new idea while making it difficult for the member of the science community to get his or her points across? Do they connect their ideas to human immorality claiming that these ideas must be advanced to return mankind to the “right path”? Do they quote-mine members of the scientific community in order to make it appear that these new ideas are actually supported while the rest of science is falling apart? Do they misrepresent scientific ideas and attribute these misrepresentations to the rest of the scientific community? Do they invent new words with unconventional meanings and then “clarify” them with more fuzzy words? Do they leave experimentation and verification to others while claiming they themselves aren’t responsible for such activity? Do they make allusions suggesting that they are in a league with history’s greatest scientists? Do they go to unusual lengths to have their name widely recognized? Do they engage in word games that attempt to change the definitions of science in order to include the supernatural? Do they claim to do experiments that demonstrate their ideas but constantly find reasons to withhold the techniques and data from the wider scientific community? Do typical ID/Creationists engage in the following activities when advancing their ideas? Do they submit their theories for peer-review to get clarification and criticism from experts? Do they propose experiments, collect data and do the difficult work needed to support their theory? Do they acknowledge data that do not support their theory? Do they acknowledge data that contradict their theory? Do they clarify their ideas when members of the scientific community point out misconceptions and inconsistencies with well supported theories and data? Do they interact routinely with members of the scientific community in order to keep their ideas subjected to scrutiny and criticism? Do they demonstrate deep knowledge of the relevant issues to the members of the scientific community? Do they command any respect from the scientific community for their over all understanding of the issues? When we compare the above lists of activities, where do we typically find the pseudo-scientist? If you compare what the pseudo-scientist does with what a typical scientist does, the typical scientist has fewer things he or she must do in order to convince the scientific community. Scientific activity is much simpler and more transparent. All the political and grass-roots agitation among naive audiences is not even necessary. When you compare the activities of pseudo-scientists with those of the ID/Creationists, there are striking similarities. Why are the activities of the typical ID/Creationist and pseudo-scientist so much more involved and so different from the activities of the typical scientist? You don’t need a federal judge to tell you.
You might wonder why it's necessary to form entire organizations to promote Darwinism and wage hate mail/trolling campaigns when all they need to do is submit one piece of positive evidence...Patrick
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Its amazing how preconceived notions can color this speach. Many here appear to be in the humans don't cause global warming camp. Thus the focus is on how humans are more important than the animals and how "good" science needs to prevail. I see it a little differently. Take for instance: Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying. I think the "postponing decisions" is subtle jab at the US policy on global warming. Also note how the term responsible (or variations thereof) is used many time in his speach. I think the real subtext is against those who are favor doing nothing. Keep in mind that both sides consider their science "good", so the science comments are not defining a side. To me this has always been a simple problem. Air pollution is a BAD thing. Some of the same sources of this pollution (gasoline cars and coal power) are also deemed to be part of the global warming problem. Now we find out that the technology has existed for some time to eliminate or nearly eliminate these sources of pollution. Doubt global warming all you want, I'm against acid rain and smog.Alann
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
The Pope's comments on warming alarmism may be epochal. Big Science has invested a great deal of its credibility in the global warming crusade. If it turns out that the "consensus" was wrong, the implications for science and culture could be far-reaching. Are we witnessing the next great paradigm change? Is Modernism with its doctrinaire materialism foundering?allanius
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
DLH you commented: "Unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamics still rule." In response to this article I submitted: Fire from Salt Water http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_Water_Using_Radio_Waves#Oct._31.2C_2007 I don't believe this is analogous to the perpetual motion machine, for in fact they are seeking to release "stored energy" that is already in the hydrogen of the water molecule. So this concept could in fact be feasible for it is somewhat similar in concept to the "extra" energy we get from our use of hydrocarbons. We know the energy is in there (in the water), the only question is did he find a proper catalyst, in salt, and process, in his specific radio waves, to break the strong chemical bonds of "normal" water so as to liberate the hydrogen energy at a useful and economical rate.bornagain77
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
Robo There are 77 million Catholics in the U.S. About a third attend Mass weekly. I think it is safe to say they are somewhat interested in what the Pope says. Another third attend Mass once or more a month. They also can be figured to be somewhat interested in what the Pope says. That doesn't make your impression wrong, btw. A lot of Protestants cared what the late Rev. Falwell said. He was figure not without influence.tribune7
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Barry, perhaps I am wrong but I get the impression that Catholics care what the Pope says about as much as Protestants care what Jerry Falwell says. ???Robo
December 13, 2007
December
12
Dec
13
13
2007
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
-----magnan, "The only problem I’ve got is the inherent contradiction. The head of an inherently theologically ideological Church urging an unbiased nonideological consideration of the matter: “….to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions…” Surely the theological pronouncements of doctrine issued by the many Popes constitute an ideology imposed on all good Catholics." Sound theological and moral doctrines do not militate against a common-sense approach to solving problems. Quite the contrary, it is impossible to understand our role of "stewards of the earth" in any other context. Contrary to popular opinion, moral leadership does not enslave, it liberates. Legitimate authority is a very good thing, and is, in no way, an "imposition of ideology." Illegitimate authority, on the other hand, is a very bad thing, and it really does do violence against the human spirit. The trick is learning how to differentiate between legitimate moral authority and illegitimate moral authority.StephenB
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
magnan Ideology
1: visionary theorizing 2 a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.
I believe the operative phrase was: "uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions…" - not "nonideological". Everyone has an ideology or worldview and cannot act without that. Benedict's admonishment is clearly directed against environmentalists led by Al Gore trying to push political action faster than/contrary to growing evidence on natural causes as primary causes for climate change. Is not Benedict XVI advocating prudent measured evaluation rather than pressured hasty action? Prudent measured discourse is equally needed in origin's discourse, especially in face of radical materialists seeking to impose their dogmatic views on the majority.DLH
December 12, 2007
December
12
Dec
12
12
2007
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply