It appears that the Pope has succumbed to the scientific community and their overwhelming army of evidence supporting evolution. Pope Benedict in a rare and candid moment had the following to say with respects to the fruitless battle that has divided millions around the world:
“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Even though it is obvious to most rational people, I will give Pope Benedict some props for coming out of the closet so to speak. But the Pope did leave the door open for God by stating that even though evolution is a reality, it still doesn’t explain how everything came in to existence.
Now I’ll be the first to agree with him on this because he’s correct. We don’t know where all the matter in the universe came from, but at the same time the scientific community doesn’t claim to know the answer. The religious community on the other hand does. They claim it was God that created everything and evolution was just a tool that God used. So the debate will rage on in a different battle at a later date.
For now though, the Pope has shifted the focus of his beleaguered army to yet another front. The Pope’s has declared war on man’s treatment of our beloved planet Earth. The purpose of this is obvious. The Catholic Church needs attention, a cause of sorts to justify it’s existence and retain power. In the past they have focused on issues like abortion, birth control, and evolution. Having lost all of these battles, the Vatican is desperate for a victory much in the same way that politicians embrace issues to get elected.
For the first time though I think the Vatican may actually have chosen a useful issue. The environment is vital to our existence whether you’re religious or not. Of course we don’t need religion to save our environment, but if the Pope can organize it’s countless millions of followers to do something good for a change then I support him.
What do you think?
Related posts:
- Pope Discovers Cure For AIDS!
- Creationism–A Veil Of Ignorance
- The Real Truth For Youth
- Sir Elton John Calls For Religion Ban
- Evolution 101–Back To The Basics
July 25th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
“He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’””
Congratulations, you’ve found a theory!
It’s funny, you hear those speakers saying how it’s so incredibly obvious that evolution makes no sense whatsoever, and yet the guy up top is backing away.
““This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness …”
Indeed, I talked to Mother Earth last week, and she was really pissed. Something or other about plastic and carbon, I think.
July 26th, 2007 at 1:38 am
[…] H/T Religious Freaks […]
July 26th, 2007 at 2:09 am
I assume this is the right step from arguing about something that is totally useless and shift our attention towards something more real and more threatening. Pope has taken a very bold step and his stature has increased in my eyes. This may give rise to lot of controversies but may be some people will follow his policy and give their due attention to environment.
Like you have pointed, science doesn’t solve everything, but this is just a start, this is just the first 200 years i assume and we have a long way to go. One day we will be more oriented to all the aspects, which we find very mysterious at this point and may be people will come out of their closet to accept the true theory.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Hey, venom much? The Catholic Church has long given into evolution. This stance is nothing new. Ever since they got burnt by that Galileo guy, they’ve been toeing the science line. This doesn’t change a thing, because the stereotyped Creationist believes the Pope is a tool of the devil. (Even though I am Catholic, I must admit that this pope looks the evil emperor.) They will only see this as validation. This is just media hype.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Damn Protestants. They really do know how to ruin the fun, don’t they? (I’m being semi-serious in a way, here).
July 26th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Gotta agree with Lessthan here; this is non-news. And American Protestants won’t give a shit anyway. No need for the venom, it only makes us look stupid.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Really?
You’d support a Catholic run environment program? I personally have a hard time accepting that the church does ANYTHING without some secret agenda of evil.
Are you a believer? Have some food.
Does your family believe in Christ? Let’s build you house.
Lacking shame for your thoughts and lifestyle? Read a bible.
Every time I see a commercial on TV, advertising for me to donate money to a poor village or something, I think “I wonder how they divide up the wealth?”. I wish I wasn’t so jaded, but you wait, soon all the good tree planting jobs will be taken by missionaries or something. Putting all the hippies out of work, and I’m sure, delivering their message of “god” to the woodland creatures. (As if they haven’t already suffered enough)
July 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Finally a smidgen of sense from the city I most want to burn to the ground while playing a violin al’a Nero.
Still hate his goose-stepping ass.
July 26th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Pope Paul had the same stance so this isn’t new.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
I don’t like the Pope, but it’s really funny to see some people here which I think the defended the Pope when he attacked prophet Muhammed, now attacking him because he is stupid.
It’s abvious that the Pope is stupid and evil too.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
The pope is neither stupid nor evil. Actually he’s much more the intellectual pope than John Paul II was. He might be a fundamentalist, but on the other hand he’s trying to marry faith and reason. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Christianity_as_the_Religion_according_to_Reason
Of course some of the ideas expressed in that quote are questionable, e.g. his rather arrogant attribution of the Enlightenment to Christianity. But, get this: The pope opposes relativism. I don’t see him employing Creationist-style relativistic babble against the science of evolution. You know, like “it’s only a theory, and the one I just pulled out of my ass should be considered just as valid!” Another example would be India; I heard some scholars there are consciously employing relativistic philosophy to defend all kinds of “traditional” medicine that is clearly contradicted by the findings of modern science.
This comic strip over there at Jesus and Mo nicely illustrates my point:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/07/05/reply/
I disagree with pope Benedict XVI on many issues, but at least we have a common ground on which to stage the battle of ideas. If someone employs extreme relativism in a debate, you might as well abort the argument right there. It’s like talking to someone you don’t share a common language with, but worse — you don’t even share the concept of logic.
So, let’s just tackle the issues by itself. I’ll vigorously oppose his diatribes against gay marriage and birth control, but I’m with him in the battle against New Agey Postmodernist relativistic blather. Don’t burn the witches, but make it absolutely clear they’re nuts.
Sorry for the long rant on one of my favorite topics :-)
July 27th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I have to join Lessthan in stating the gasmonso’s article is very inaccurate concerning the Catholic belief in evolution. Pope Pius XII, back in *1950* wrote an encyclical called Humani Generis that evolution was not against Church teaching. Pope John Paul II gave a talk at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in October *1996* reinforcing that 46-year old statement and going further, recognizing “the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis”.
Pope Benedict XVI is apparently just stating the same.
I like it when religious fanaticism is reported & ridiculed here on _Religious Freaks_, but this article is just ignorant. It is, itself, fanatical in its anti-Catholicism. (”When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.”)
July 27th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Well Lurking Reader I was raised a catholic and my family is Catholic… so I don’t hate them. Hate is a very ugly word that I reserve for special occasions… like I hate McDonalds and I hate people who drive slow in the left lane.
gasmonso
July 28th, 2007 at 11:48 am
There are different levels of hate.
I see Faith as a very ugly word. I hate religion in all of its forms, most notably political. As for individuals, I hate the religious part of the individual. The more religious they are, the more hate I find that I have for them. Counting redeeming qualities, it may balance out to be a anything from a burning wish for their extremely excruciating demise to a subtle dislike for the person. For people like the Pope, clerics, priests and other ‘professionally holy’ individuals, and almost all of the Middle East (since faith is widely the defacto reason for living in that cultural wasteland), that’s some big time hate. A sort of ‘hope you die in a fire you waste of life’ hate. For your average idiot who has faith because s/he was brought up with it and otherwise doesn’t follow it much, I have a simple ‘fist shaken in anger’ hate. Kiddies are immune from the hate until they reach maturity and gain the capability to reason for themselves and make their own decisions. But unlike religious freaks, I never take it to a physical level or lobby to have their rights taken away, which is the supreme difference between us.
July 28th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
You scare me, Blasphemaster.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I think he scares me too.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
he should scare you. the likes of him and myself will be the end of your ugly little dogmatic empires.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Good luck Boris, heeeeheeee.
Man you are dreamer, any way Boris, I don’t hate you, I just feel sympathy for you, by the way Islam is the most spread religion in the whole world, and if you hear the news you will find out that the Pop’s secratary was crying the world that, Islam is spreading so fast in Europe.
There is no sword included in that, it’s only the true religion and the right message gets the people into Islam, and haters like will stay haters.
Boris, you need to realx little bit, it’s going to be ok, if you need help, I’m here for you:))))))))
July 28th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
ofcourse its wide spread. you people breed like rats. one day we will kick out the whole lot of you out of europe. just wait…
July 28th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Heeeeeeeeeheeeeeeee, I told you are dreamer, and I don’t think we want to control Europe or any other part of the world, we are ok, who ever wants to be Muslim he welcomes, who ever choose not, it’s his choice.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
you may think that way (which i doubt) but a lot of your islam buddies are hell-bent on world domination…
July 28th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
May be some of them has this way of thinking, but they are few, and I would hate to see Muslims be a Muslim because he forced to.
I will fight that with my life if Muslims tried to do that, God doesn’t need oppressed people to believe in him, he needs true believers to believe in him by their own choice.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
but don’t you see what’s happening in the UK and all across western europe regarding the muslim communities? i mean someone is doing just that. the last thing the western world needs right now is more religion, and that is exactly what the muslims are providing.it has to stop at some point…
July 28th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I watched somthing like that in CNN, and it really bothered me a big deal, but at the other side there was a lot Muslims denouncing them.
The message of Islam is mercy, these kind of people will not be able to do what they want because there are Muslims know the true Islam, so don’t worry.
The reason for these people to show up, because what’s going on from USA and UK, they are using it as reason, so the USA and UK don’t even help the moderate Muslims to set things right.
It’s frustrating sometimes for me.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Haha, I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Mohamed one day. Blasphemaster scares me because his post is hateful and self-righteous:
What Blasphemaster doesn’t get is that not every religious person wants to take his rights away. And he fails to consider that every human is fallible. I’m pretty sure if atheists were a strong majority in a country, some of us would start lobbying to have the rights of religious people taken away. At least this is what happened in Communist countries. Of course this doesn’t make atheism wrong, but it shows that atheism doesn’t automatically lead to moral superiority.
I’m sorry if I come off as claiming the moral highground for myself now. That is not the case. I often habor hateful feelings towards all kinds of things, too. But hatred is not a good advisor. As a humbling experience, I prescribe watching the “Go God, Go” episodes of South Park to every atheist. There’s a scene where Kyle has to wear a duncecap labeled “I have faith”, which is only feebly protested by Dawkins. He should have intervened even at the expense of destroying his relationship with Mrs Garrison. But he’s only human, like everyone else.
@Mohamed:
It’s great that you’re at least bothered by the actions of adherents to your own faith. I agree that Western countries should try to assist people who want to integrate into the society around them. But don’t forget that the main burden of integration has to be shouldered by the immigrants themselves. The polls from the UK showing that a considerable share of Muslims is opposed to secularization frighten me. Antisemitism and Holocaust denial are wide-spread, too.
In my opinion the Muslim world as a whole currently experiences a deep psychological crisis because they had to surrender the cultural pole position to the Western world and now emerging Asian tigers. Many — I’d say most — are blaming the evil West for it. To a small extent, that is even true. But Muslims who think evil Western oppression is the sole reason for their demise, and that reintroducing religious fevor would remedy the situation, are kidding themselves. It’s the other way around. Muslim societies will have to ditch a lot of cherished traditions to be able to even compete with the Western world. Obviously that’s hard to stomach. Deal with it.
Back to European immigration. I find it sad that some Christians are so insecure that they lobby for establishing Christian symbols but deny the same to Muslims. I’m talking about the (thwarted) attempt to introduce a reference to god in the preamble of the European constitution, and about the move to ban head scarfs for teachers in Germany. Talk about hypocrisy. It’d be so easy to just take a leaf out of France’s book and move towards a completely laical society. But no, the almost forgotten anti-blasphemy law (§ 166 StGB) undergoes a revival at the hands of offended Muslims. Also, banning teachers from wearing head-scarfs would be a no-brainer if only some conservative politicians could bring it over themselves to ban the cross, too. Note that I’m talking about public schools here and that it would only affect teachers, not pupils.
Finally, Mohamed, the problem with “moderate” Muslims is that you count yourself as one. Yet you deny evolution just because your faith says so. If you were a Christian, you’d count as a fundamentalist. What we need is the small group of openly liberal Muslims to elevate to the status of moderates. Until that day, I’ll be wary of so-called moderate Muslims whining about oh-so-evil Western oppression. Get a grip.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:46 am
“Blasphemaster scares me because his post is hateful and self-righteous: ….. What Blasphemaster doesn’t get is that not every religious person wants to take his rights away. And he fails to consider that every human is fallible.”
Just like you prove yourself to be in your second sentence here. Where do I fail to consider this? I stated that -> I
July 29th, 2007 at 10:47 am
*what the hell, that post didn’t come out whole, trying again*
“Blasphemaster scares me because his post is hateful and self-righteous: ….. What Blasphemaster doesn’t get is that not every religious person wants to take his rights away. And he fails to consider that every human is fallible.”
Just like you prove yourself to be in your second sentence here. Where do I fail to consider this? I stated that -> I
July 29th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Ok, for some odd reason that post got chopped up, gonna try again later.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Daniel,
I didn’t deny evolution, I deny that evolution is reason for creation, and I said that before, evolution exist, but not to explain human-being existence.
My faith has nothing to do with it, it’s just logic takes me this way.
You said immigrant has the blame too, and I agree with you, most of Muslims go to Eurpean country to get money, the don’t even think about lobbying or doning any kind of politics, the only thing that they find diffculites in that.
I know so many Muslims in USA, I didn’t find a Muslim talk about idea like lobbying, we just talk about work and life and our families in our countries, and that’s it.
Actually from what I found from the CNN, that the problem in UK from the citizen Muslims, not immigrant, I found that citizens has this ideas more than the new comers to UK, which it tells you something , I think they had the same situation like black people in USA.
Any way if that’s their feeling too, they are to blame too, because I don’t agree with people whinning and leave it all for discrimnation and blah blah.
I think everybody can change his life, even if people discrimnate against him, and it’s from perssonel experince.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Okay Mohamed, I may have misrepresented your views. I actually agree that evolution only answers the How, not the Why, of life. At least if you restrict the Why to questions about purpose. However, I had a look through the various comments of yours on this site and found this statement:
Well then. I think the real problem is that you don’t understand what evolution actually is. Unqualified, the term “evolution” usually refers to biological evolution, i.e. the origin of species from very primitive single-cell lifeforms. You’ve probably been directed to http://www.talkorigins.org before, but from what you write it appears you haven’t paid this educational site a visit yet.
The formation of stars, planets and even chemical elements is explained by stellar evolution. Currently all evidence points to a Big Bang as originating event. But the process of stellar evolution really only starts after the Big Bang, much like the way biological evolution takes place after abiogenesis. And contrary to what Creationists (including proponents of so-called intelligent design) proclaim, there are several promising hypotheses of abiogenesis, and the spontaneous formation of complex organic compounds from simple ones has been observed in the laboratory.
Of course this still doesn’t explain the Why as in purpose. But purpose is not what science is all about. I’m sorry if you came to believe otherwise. It’s perfectly OK believe in god and at the same time accept the scientific finding that life on earth as we know it developed due to evolution, and that natural explanations of abiogenesis are available and valid. That is, unless your interpretation of religion requires you to make pronouncements about the observable nature which are contradicted by science. In that case, you lose.
Pretending that the theory of evolution isn’t scientific won’t make it so. If the creationists succeed in marginalizing evolution in the classroom, the likely outcome is that fewer naturalized Americans will become scientists and bright students from countries with better science education will take over. To add insult to injury, I believe it’s likely that these new scientists will still flock to the US and thus make it painfully obvious to the dimwits that they have been Left Behind ™.
Logic? I think your religious beliefs are the motivation behind your “logic”. Well, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Your premises, however, are terribly wrong. I think once you learn what the theory of evolution actually says, it’s all perfectly logical.
Well that’s great! There’s nothing wrong with trying to escape a dire economical situation.
Yeah, it’s quite similar here: Second-generation immigrants born in Germany often express more religious fervor and adherence to traditional values than their parents do. This seems surprising at first but is actually quite understandable in my opinion. It’s similar to the problem with god’s grandchildren, only the other way around. The parents made a conscious decision to leave their home country and to live among people of a culture different from their own. Their children had no choice and often don’t feel at home in either culture, experiencing resentment from both.
I think the key to solving this problem is to make integration happen within a single generation, so that the children of immigrants aren’t born into a cultural netherworld. This is something the US has traditionally been much better at than European countries. Just a few years ago German politicians were still discussing whether Germany is an “immigration country”. Go figure. Meanwhile whole parallel societies emerged in German cities. And unlike the UK we got lucky, in that the majority of the Muslim immigrants are from secular Turkey. I have never seen a burqa in Berlin.
It was about time that Europe stopped ignoring the problem and began tackling the problems. There’s still a long way to go though. And it should be absolutely clear that acceptance of secularism and individual freedom is a prerequisite and in no way negotiable. I hate to say it, but no-one who hates Western society is forced to live in one.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
*lets see if this works now*
“Blasphemaster scares me because his post is hateful and self-righteous: ….. What Blasphemaster doesn’t get is that not every religious person wants to take his rights away. And he fails to consider that every human is fallible.”
Just like you prove yourself to be in your second sentence here. Where do I fail to consider this? I stated that -> I
July 30th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Blasphemaster, maybe WordPress is confused by the content of your post. There’s a suspicious “>” sign which might be the cause.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:41 am
*could be the culprit, trying again*
“Blasphemaster scares me because his post is hateful and self-righteous: ….. What Blasphemaster doesn’t get is that not every religious person wants to take his rights away. And he fails to consider that every human is fallible.”
Just like you prove yourself to be in your second sentence here. Where do I fail to consider this? I stated that I don’t take it to that level. I fully expect that if at some point atheists become even a moderate minority, some will lobby legislation in opposition of or for the oppression of religion.
I have some hateful feelings, obviously. Everyone does, always has, and always will. We’re human, we’ve proven time and again that we are EXTREMELY fallible. I hate, but I keep my hate to myself.
I am well aware that not every religious person is the oppressive sort, hence my description of varying levels of hate. Yet, they are essentially all at fault on some level in that they support an oppressive institution. In being religious, they have opened themselves to an obsolete and harmful realm of thought: That something can be right and true simply because it is declared to be so, rather than what is found through experience to be so. Religion is a force of cultural, technological and medical stagnation which must be opposed if we are to improve ourselves. The methods of opposition however must suit the situation.
Atheists and other non-religious folk are a small, small minority, and so our methods of opposing the established politicized religious system are therefore limited. I find mine in anger, hate, and rational discourse. I for one do not identify myself as a member of a group which has a long history of setting people on fire, severing their heads, blowing them to pieces, subjecting them to torture for disagreement and engaging in genocide.
No Jew, Christian, or Muslim can claim that.
Granted, there is one prime example of an atheist who rose to a position of supreme power and became an incredibly sadistic bastard: Joseph Stalin. However, his atheism held no part in his sadism, which is largely the result of a host of psychological maladies, most notably his extreme paranoia.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Sorry, I didn’t mean to accuse you in particular of being one of the atheists who would oppress others if in the majority. The reason I brought this topic forward was to show by example that the connection between religion and evil deeds is not necessarily one of causation, but often only one of correlation. Religion is often a great excuse for evilness, though. I’ll give you that. But that wasn’t my point anyway. Let me try again:
I think my first claim of hatefulness is already established, even by your own admission. Note that I’m not damning you because of your emotions. I just don’t think that hatred of the level you expressed in your post is going to be of any help.
What you’re doing here is that you attribute the actions of individuals to their religion. To some extent this may be valid. The extent to which this assumption truly holds true is debatable and a topic for psychological studies. On the other hand though, the way you’re talking about “the supreme difference between us” makes it sound as if “atheists would never do that!” In other words, you’re being self-righteous here, or at least you appear to be so.
If there’s an evil atheist like Josef Stalin, you attribute his actions to something else:
I absolutely agree that Stalin’s sadism wasn’t rooted in his atheism. However, I think you’ll have to apply the same rules to religious sadists. Note that I’m not denying that there’s often a case to be made that a particular babaric practise can be justified by quoting some “holy” scripture or saint or whatever. In fact I think you can justify almost anything by quoting various bits of scripture of any religion whatsoever.
And “anything” includes good deeds, too. Heck, you can justify decisions over entirely morally neutral matters like the structure of the calendar and when to have holidays etc. by quoting scripture. So, the question is thus: Is society a mirror of religion, or is religion a mirror of society?
My personal belief is that both views are true. As an atheist, I believe that god was created in man’s image and not the other way around, which means that religion mirrors society. On the other hand, once codified, religious belief often assists to conserve assumptions about the world which are simply false, or no longer useful. Thus society mirrors religion. The degree to which either interpretation holds true is of course debatable.
The problem is that you’re talking about a time where almost everyone was religious. Thus it’s difficult to draw conclusions of causality.
Maybe the reason for our divergent views is that I grew up in a mostly non-religious environment. Specifically, I grew up and still live in Berlin. At least among my generation, religious people are clearly in the minority. Strong religious convictions are in fact a curiosity around here. That doesn’t stop many people from picking up esoterics and so-called “alternative” medicine, though…
July 30th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
(Of course, the Pope saying a few sane things doesn’t make the whole religious enterprise any less sordid, so I’ll take that as a given.)
Until relatively recently, the whole evolution/ creation argument seemed to have been settled over a hundred years ago. So, it’s hardly a surprise that the Pope hasn’t unilaterally decided to turn his church’s mental clock back a century.
Though it is, as you suggest, a welcome surprise that he’s spoken about the environment. I guess the Catholic Church heirarchy must be bright enough to realise that there’s no future for them without a constituency of living devotees. (This is a good few steps ahead of most of our governments)
Still, there’s enough lip service paid to the environment to power a small town, if only someone can work out how to convert hot air into electricity. Do they have any actual actions lined up?
July 30th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Once again there seems to be a lot of discourse about moderates in religion disliking those that are extremists, and claims that there are far more moderates than extremists. Typical conversation which I don’t believe a word of. If the vast majority of moderates in any religion actually showed up one morning with all the extremists in their religion trussed up and handed in on a silver platter, then I’d start to believe that whole line of reasoning. But until then, I’ll continue to believe that every religious moderate fully condones, and in fact via their moderate religious actions, purposefully shields the extremists from any kind of recourse.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:05 am
How wonderful this is! I stumbled upon this site while researching the most ridiculous position taken by the Krazy Kristians that the world is only 5,000 years old and that man rode dinsosaurs so they could co-exist. This claim is beyond the pale even for the nutty fundamentalists. It is so crazy Bill Maher even mentions it in his stand-up. Anyway I have bookmarked this site and intend to visit often. Keep up the good work and never forget those immortal words: Go ahead and hate your neighbor. Go ahead and cheat your friend. Do it in the name of heaven and you will justify it in the end. Praise the Lord and God bless Billy Jack!!
August 25th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
The major Christian churches, such as the Catholic, the Anglican, and the major Protestant (Evangelical Lutheran) have all stated that evolution is right - and downright more interesting than creationism.
It’s a handful of lunatics, particularly present in the United States, that are claiming evolutional theory is wrong and creationism is right - never mind about the dinosaurs and the 6000 years. And for some odd reason, people are actually listening to what they say.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Anyone who believes Evolution is science and not a religion is looking at it with eyes closed. Evolution should be categorized as another religion, and in fact a cult by all standards. Dr Kent Hovind from drdino.com has proved it so many times that no one will dare publicly debate him or his son anymore!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Dr. Hovind, Dr. Hovind… Oh, he’s the one who’s in jail again, isn’t he? Yep, 10 years for tax evasion. So much for “giving on to Caesar that which is Caesar’s” Oh, and ‘Dr.’ should be in quotes, his PhD is in ‘Christian Education’ from the unaccredited Patriot Bible University. So much for “not bearing false witness”.
Anyway, what would be your definition of religion and why would it include a scientific theory in that definition?
November 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
That’s funny.
so you classify religion as:
“testable, predictive, so far unrefuted theory, backed up by copious ammounts of observable proof.”?
As for the “proof” on that website? come on, it’s really sad. Irreducible complexity of the eye? Bombadier beetles? simply laughable astronomical examples. failure to grasp the second law of thermodynamics. litteral acceptance of the Flood, even though Noah’s ark is provably impossible. etc etc.
Anyone who claims a degree, hell anyone with a proper highschool education, can toss three quarters of those claims out of the window.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
for the other 25% you’d need a second person whose interest lie slightly different.
nobody wants to debate with the guy because he simply refuses to admit his evidence is wrong. Kind of like you really.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
sidfaiwu Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Dr. Hovind, Dr. Hovind… Oh, he’s the one who’s in jail again, isn’t he? Yep, 10 years for tax evasion. So much for “giving on to Caesar that which is Caesar’s” Oh, and ‘Dr.’ should be in quotes, his PhD is in ‘Christian Education’ from the unaccredited Patriot Bible University. So much for “not bearing false witness”.
Anyway, what would be your definition of religion and why would it include a scientific theory in that definition?
November 8th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Where is it written that protesting being taxed illegally, which by the way is what the I.R.S. does, discredits the man as a foremost expert in his field. That being creation verses evolution. The fact still remains that not one of your evolution experts wil;l dare debate him or his son, and lost all former debates across the board. These are documented facts by the way.
Also first define scientific theory.
sidfaiwu Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Dr. Hovind, Dr. Hovind… Oh, he’s the one who’s in jail again, isn’t he? Yep, 10 years for tax evasion. So much for “giving on to Caesar that which is Caesar’s” Oh, and ‘Dr.’ should be in quotes, his PhD is in ‘Christian Education’ from the unaccredited Patriot Bible University. So much for “not bearing false witness”.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Per usualyou speak from ignorance. His debates which were all won hands down were done at neutral sites with audiences from both sides in attendance and he won by a large margin.
alcari Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
for the other 25% you’d need a second person whose interest lie slightly different.
nobody wants to debate with the guy because he simply refuses to admit his evidence is wrong. Kind of like you really.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:37 am
No evolutionists will debate Mr. Hovind (who the hell is his son? What are his credentials?) because he’s not an expert in the field. And because he’s unavailable as he’s in prison. Also, he holds a bogus PhD from an unaccredited university. Experts can’t waste their time with every yokel with an alternative crack-pot theory based on creative readings of ancient texts.
I’m sure whether he’s ‘won’ or ‘lost’ debates in the past is largely in the eye of the observer as well as the knowledge level, charisma, and debating experience of the debaters. Can you provide details or even links to those debates? Thanks.
Finally, you completely failed to answer my question. What is your definition of religion?
November 9th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I give you facts and you respond with nothing more than gossip and innuendos.
Waht is your definition of science and religion?
sidfaiwu Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 9:37 am
No evolutionists will debate Mr. Hovind (who the hell is his son? What are his credentials?) because he’s not an expert in the field. And because he’s unavailable as he’s in prison. Also, he holds a bogus PhD from an unaccredited university. Experts can’t waste their time with every yokel with an alternative crack-pot theory based on creative readings of ancient texts.
I’m sure whether he’s ‘won’ or ‘lost’ debates in the past is largely in the eye of the observer as well as the knowledge level, charisma, and debating experience of the debaters. Can you provide details or even links to those debates? Thanks.
Finally, you completely failed to answer my question. What is your definition of religion?
November 9th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
go to drdino.com, and if you really have a desire to know anything you asked me than check out his website. For the record, evolutionists stopped debating him long before he made a stand against paying taxes, which I remind you AGAIN is illegal and unconstitutional. Ask the folks at the website at drdino.com for copies of the debates. You will be very quiet as your religion of evolution is systematically destroyed by logic and incredible facts.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
“For the record, evolutionists stopped debating him long before he made a stand against paying taxes”
Thats because long before he stopped paying taxes he was making ignorant claims without any scientific fact, no one was going to waste their time with him.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
well now irish, please enlighten us oh man of knowledge! Pray tell what claims & quotes of Dr Hovinds can you refute for us? Since you opened your mouth for your foot, for there is not one shred of truth in your statements regarding Dr Hovind. The truth is he kicked every evolutionists butt and made a worldwide challenge for any more to come forth and they all hid behind their keyboards to try and discredit him anonymously. Kinda like you! Once you have sat through his lectures or attended a debate then you can comment. Otherwise please excuse yourself from this subject board!
irishthunder Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
“For the record, evolutionists stopped debating him long before he made a stand against paying taxes”
Thats because long before he stopped paying taxes he was making ignorant claims without any scientific fact, no one was going to waste their time with him.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
“go to drdino.com, and if you really have a desire to know anything you asked me than check out his website. For the record, evolutionists stopped debating him long before he made a stand against paying taxes, which I remind you AGAIN is illegal and unconstitutional. Ask the folks at the website at drdino.com for copies of the debates. You will be very quiet as your religion of evolution is systematically destroyed by logic and incredible facts.”
I decided I would take a minute of my time to investigate drdino.com and see what was there. I found an interesting tidbit called “Creationism Isn’t Science” under a section called “Answering Critics.” Let’s take a look, shall we?
“Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world.”
No. No. And for the third time, no. Evolution says absolutely nothing about God. It hasn’t had found a reason to. There’s a difference between that and assuming God doesn’t exist. Science looks for explanations given what can be analyzed. God is not analyzed, and the current system sees no need for him. God, then, has no place in evolution. It needs to be noted that this can change, if evidence that points to a God is considered strong enough. It also needs to be noted that evolution doesn’t disqualify God’s existence, since evolution says nothing regarding “ultimate” origins. Evolution, like anything in science, starts with what’s observed; Creationism does not.
“As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1, in six literal days2. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago3, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It’s important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.
When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we’re given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).”
Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
“As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises.”
I’ve already said what I will regarding this.
“There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also…Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent.”
Indeed. But then we go to the next sentence…
“It’s important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.”
Well, now, this is assuming quite a bit, isn’t it? Also, what does this have to do with man testing a hypothesis? We’re talking about physical evidence, right? If you pull out a Bible and call it evidence, I don’t see why I (or any non-Christian, whether he or she believe in evolution or not) should listen.
“Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).”
Here’s a fun one. Creationists already have the truth; so why even talk about data? Of course, there’s also that whole assumption thing. As for that last sentence, well, that’s not what I hear from most scientists. And since there’s no citation for that sentence or sources given that aren’t Biblical, why should I believe it again? Oh yes; the Scriptures. How scientific.
“Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them…”
Right, already spoke on this one, but I’m pointing out how important this assumption is to these guys. Remember, scientists, your theories are faith!
(This is such a common argument. I don’t feel like going to far into it, but in short, either evolution is faith, or theories are just theories. Decide.)
(Actually, I will go further. Science is a system that attempts to describe observable existence. It changes as the data changes. Science has been wrong and, importantly, has admitted it and subsequently changed; I find this a reason to trust it, not to doubt it. If there are any assumptions, they are conditional and noted: Assuming the world is as we experience it, and various other theories are true… Creationism just skips this and says, “We are right.” That’s rather non-scientific and frankly stubborn, don’t you think?)
“voodoo-science”
Oh no children! Those Drosophilia are going to ruin you minds! Next they’ll tell you about zombies!
“Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts, and done so dogmatically.”
This I find I can agree with to an extent. Many people, including scientists, are not always scientific. Science doesn’t make claims to ultimate truth, but as I said before, follows from a set of conditions that may or may not be the case. (The things mentioned above are, however, considered facts in that they are the best solutions we have that seem to meet all conditions and are observable.) Dogmatism is generally bad no matter who does it. What puts science in a better situation here than Creationism is that science ultimately is expected to bow to empirical fact, whereas Creationism is not, and is if fact inclined to dogmatism (the infallible word of God, right?). Science is made to be correctable, putting even the dogmatists of science in an improved position over time, whereas Creationism leaves people wherever they think they should be.
The rest basically reiterates that evolution is evil indoctrination and that God is great.
I’m not really sure why I put this. I don’t expect to change any minds, since no one is willing to do so. As for debating, I’ll say that generally scientists aren’t made for debate; however, an enthusiastic Christian is (I could elaborate if anyone wanted me to). Now I’m going to walk away slowly.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:28 am
good job snurp, i can’t think of anything to add to that. RRock, just to let you know, my college, North Carolina State, has hosted several debates in the past 3 years regarding Evolution vs. creation. I’ve attended them all and even taken part in one. Look when i was younger i REALLY tried to accept the whole “god created everything and thats all we need to know” mindset, i read the bible and went to numerous “workshops”. It just never happened.
By the way, why do you react so hostile and condescendingly to every post that doesn’t mesh with yours?
November 10th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Something that, upon re-reading, I think should be stated more clearly in from last post.
“No. No. And for the third time, no. Evolution says absolutely nothing about God. It hasn’t had found a reason to. There’s a difference between that and assuming God doesn’t exist. Science looks for explanations given what can be analyzed. God is not analyzed, and the current system sees no need for him. God, then, has no place in evolution.”
The difference I’m describing here is this: evolution starts with observable things, not with assumptions about what may or may not cause them. So God is simply not brought up. This, as I said above, does not mean evolution assumes God has no intervention. It doesn’t assume anything does or does not. It simply goes from the observable, to an explanation that connects all the dots in the most sensible way (hypothesis) and that, upon examination, manages to explain other phenomena and make successful predictions (theory). So far, this has been done without God.
November 10th, 2007 at 7:47 am
You guys are hopeless. Suddenly snurp appears to attempt to resue his fellow godless soul and picks a paragragh, mind you, from a 6 part teaching to attempt to discredit Hovind, and creation. With that said, I encorage any other readers to examine Dr Hovind’s creation vs evolution in it’s entirety, not one paragraph. Again you behave like a Christian, quoting bible out of context. The whole point was that drdino.com easily disproves evolution, and puts it in it’s proper category—a religion. For the record, snurp, the bible is chock full of “observable things”. I guess God was right AGAIN, “a fool has said in his heart there is no God.”
November 10th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
WTF rrock? you appearently read what Snurp said because you responded to it, but somewhere in your Religion-filter it got messed up to lose it’s point.
The point simply is this:
Scientific theories recognise they might not be perfect, but adapt to suit more recent observation and is thus constantly improving and providing better understanding of the universe. The present theory represents the epitomy of discovered knowledge, it fits ALL observable evidence, or it recognises the evidence as deviating and recognises that there is an anomaly.
So yes, scientific Theory is not absolute thruth, it is merely the best possible model of reality.
Creationism, on the other hand, starts with the claim that they are right. When new evidence is found, creationism doesn’t change to reflect new findings, but seeks to discredit them..
———————
Please, tell me how the bible is full of observable things that actually matter. Because Moby Dick is full of observable things to, but that doesn’t make it less finctional.
Also, seeing how that drdino.com website is rather long, and refuting every single point would be a LOT of work, why don’t you pick some of the best points showing why Young Earth Creationism is true, and I’ll pick the apart. Please note how a LOT of articles don’t even make a point, their purpose seems to be simply to discredit to scientif explanation of the universe by used harsh language.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I love his reasoning:
There is no civilisation older then 6000 years, and no geologic feature older then 6000 and every method that shows there is must be wrong.
It’s like saying:
“There is no object in this house older then 5 years, therefore the house must be 5 years old.” “What about this plaqua saying ‘build in 1980′?” “That was put there to discredit my irrefutable thruth”
November 10th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Alcari, thruth… what’s up my man? you are running HOT!
What happened to you, Alcari?
November 10th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
It just really irks me when people say that Evolution is wrong, based on nothing but erroneous thinking and then accuse me of being wrong and not thinking my side of the argument through.
Also, appologies for my horrible spelling in the two posts above. I reread them and it’s a lot worse then usual. In my defense, English is a second language for me.
The question still stands though, What ‘proof’ of Young Earth Creationism do you (where “you” can be anyone feeling up to it) think is so irrefutable it must be true. All of the points on the drdino.com site, for example, can be easily disproven and I will gladly do so, as long someone will select a few as there are to many to disprove all of them. (at least, more then I have spare time for)