Re: The Pope should embrace evolution

Googler <GOOGLE.4.godfatha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mcv wrote:
Larry Moran <lamoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 12:34:05 -0700,
Googler <GOOGLE.4.godfatha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

More at:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/kenneth_miller/2006/09/miller.html

Excellent article - everyone should read the whole article at the link.

Also the comments to it - demonstrating that some who claim to be
pro-science are still captive to their anti-religious fundamentalist
prejudices.

Hmmm ... I thought the article demonstrated that some who claim to be
scientists are still captives of their religious childhood upbringing.

One of the best comments was from "Slightfoxing"

"Why on earth should hard-working scientists be anything
other but totally indifferent as to whether or not their
labours are endorsed by the perpetuators of peasant
superstition? It would be better for all if God-botherers
of every shade kept their mouths shut about things they know
nothing."

But that comment is completely irrelevant to the article. The article
is not directed at scientists. As far as I can tell, it's directed at
people interested in a christian view of science, and at people who
think that science might conflict with a christian world view.
The article points out that it doesn't.

If you're not christian, you're probably not interested and might as
well be the one to keep your mouth shut.

I also like "Lacanian's" comments including ...

"Miller: 'The same applies to evolution. Far from reducing
humanity to the random result of pointless molecular
collisions, evolution unites us with every living being in
a fabric of life and change in which our emergence, and the
continuing creative power of our universe, is the product
of the Creator's will and love. There is indeed a design to
life - and the name of that design is evolution.'

Humanity IS a random result of pointeless molecular collisions.
Oh, my hearts just not in it today. I'm sure some other
scientists will provide much needed clarity here."

I fail to see what's so insightful about that comment. His heart
is clearly not in it.

In my opinion you picked two of the most short-sighted and irrelevant
comments to admire.

I wonder why you seem to get the point so readily, and yet others seem
unable to?

Could be because it's closely related to a point I often try to get
across to people: that if God created this universe, he must also
be outside our concept of time. It makes sense that he'd also be
outside our concept of causality then. I didn't know that Thomas
Aquinas had already made this point, though. That's very interesting
indeed.

Anyway, it's rather abstract stuff, so I can really blame people for
not understanding this, especially if they're not really interested
anyway.

Well, if I may answer my own question, I would say it is because these
folks (codebreaker, Mark Stahl, Larry Moran, et al) are also captive
to their anti-religious prejudices. There isn't much point trying to
reason with them, because prejudice is inherently irrational.

But some of them claim to be rational, which makes the prejudice all
the more sad.

Ken Miller is a well-respected biologist who also, quite literally,
'wrote the book' on biology. His "claim" to be a scientist is very
well grounded - as well grounded as anyone who posts on T.O.,
including the aforementioned. He is also a religious believer, and
that, it seems, is what really burns them.

Apparently because, as relating to Miller is concerned, they've lost
that easy hook of associating religious believers with creationists. It
exposes their prejudices for what they are, and that is very, very
dark.

I recently had a discussion with someone who claimed that any christian
was by definition a creationist. I kept explaining my view on it, and
he kept broadening his definition of creationism until it became almost
meaningless.

If you define creationism in a way that it doesn't contradict evolution,
then yes, I might be a creationist. I fail to see the point in that,
though. Especially in light of the ID discussion.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel

.

Relevant Pages