Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Yes. I checked. Spendius claiming that someone besides himself is off topic is the actual height of chutzpah.

Congratulations.

'tis he who offered the idea that evolution was a dangerous idea because it will destroy Catholicism, but then we discover through his posts that he is not familiar enough with the current doctrine of the Church to defend his own idea. Sad, really, though not necessarily unlike millions of others who believe something they think is Catholicism but which is only a half-baked impression of the faith.

Catholicism has actually come to terms with evolution, it's Spendius who is struggling.

Joe(Swim, swim, you can make it!!)Nation

I love science too Beth. I owe my life to science. I was a government scientist for over 20 years at the cutting edge. Then I taught science for 7 years. Then I set up in business which I'm still in.

Everybody loves science apart from a very tiny minority of hermits.

You would be kidding yourself if you thought Christians don't love science. You would be under an illusion if you thought you loving science was any more unusual than loving ice-cream on hot days. Or any more deserving of admiration and respect.

It is science which leads me to think that evolution is a dangerous idea if not confined to a small group of specialists. It is science which leads me to think that the only alternative to religion is a strictly controlled state. There is plenty of science which the general public are not aware of. Mainly because the general public cannot understand it and know it. Evolution science is easy to understand. It's implications are not easy to understand.

If the implications were understood the poll figures showing a certain acceptance of the science would not be as high as they are. The stated acceptance has a certain attraction for other reasons than the science.

I have mentioned them.

Good thing I don't think that.

I don't throw nets as wide as that.

There are Christians who love science. There are Christians who don't love science. There are Christians who fear the results of science. There are Christians who appreciate the results of science.

Christianity is not a one-size-fits-all sweater. No religion is.

Evolution is luverly, isn't it.

You've pegged it. There may be scientific explanations for all kinds of popular and unpopular evolutionary developments in us and the world around us.

Thanks for pointing out how luverly that is.

awesome

a six-footer with a government pension. Just the kind of fella my grandmother was always recommending.

Isn't it wonderful that you evolved into such a fine specimen.

Too many persons, spendi as an example, wish to cherry pick from science, hoping to bury the rest for whatever personal reasons. There are many persons who cherry pick science for very different reasons than the ones spendi gives, but they are not here posting. Now that I understand where spendi is coming from, I can quit arguing with him, as he has been thoroughly refuted many times over, here and on several threads. Get my drift, spendius? I may make facetious comments, but no longer need to argue with you.

Show where I have been off topic Joe except where I have been responding to some gratuitous insult or an off topic post. I notice you don't deny you were off topic in your eagerness to dwell upon the Pope's tribulations and the causes of it as if he doesn't have a few thousand others.

Auberon Waugh often reminded his readers, and he had a very large number, that the more a man drew attention to his honesty and integrity the faster we (Mr Waugh's servants ) counted the spoons.



I am well aware of what orthodox Catholic opinion of evoltion theory is. It becomes a question of what "evolution" means. What it means to most pro-evolutionists on A2K is that there is no intelligent designer and that this world, and everything in it, is a chance happening without meaning or purpose. It doesn't mean the struggle for existence or the survival of the fittest to them though. The institutional changes required to bring those back would be sensational. News Media would be in such a gluttonous feeding frenzy on the sensations involved that I verily believe it would actually get sick of it as would its consumers. Sensation fatigue would set in. It set in in me years ago. Such is the distance the materialists have already taken us. Not that a materialist would notice. It is very difficult to notice that one has become the pub bore or the process by which it happened.

The BBC referred to the Catholic Church as "the most powerful insitution in the world." The other night. On the main News. Do you seriously think that the actions of a few priests can offer an excuse for some jumped up non-entities to have an-"oh look at me session--aren't I forward in my detestation of child molesters", as if it is something to be really, really proud of, to go into bat against such an august body without being laughed at or even their motives being suspected. Some of our newsreaders are almost salivating on the matter.

What use has such an institution for members who would allow such incidents to lead them to question their faith in its power when kings and emperors and presidents have bowed to it. Presient Bush said in his speech to greet the Pope, who came to read the riot act to the American Branch, --"I hope he doesn't scold me". Accompanied by that "is it or isn't it" expression he could do so well. I saw that. I was watching keenly too but only as a result of my participation in these debates.

The sooner the Church is rid of people who allow those things to cloud their judgement (ahem!) the better it will be for it.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is by my side, states--



The A2Kers I have debated these matters with are all materialists. Evolution means something to them which it doesn't mean to others. To use the word, when it is well known to have critically different meanings as if it only has one meaning, suggests to me that there is a reticence to use the word "materialism" despite that being what they actually mean. Which is a devious and dirty cunning trick and brings into question either their intelligence or their attitude to the English Language. What can one say about them if they know they are doing it? What can one say if they don't?

Materialism being something of a dirty word but nevertheless that is what they are and they needn't be ashamed of it to the extent of using a nicer word to mean materialist but only meaning it in the one sense a materialist gives it.

Your assertion that I am struggling is worthless. Like all your other assertions. You can blurt them until you're blue in the face for all the effect they have on me. It makes me smile that you think they will have an effect on A2Kers. But all materialists are like that. They think everybody is stupid.

I didn't rate your confession story either. It was strained. It didn't ring authentic. Not to me anyway. And it's so so old you know. I imagine the first sighting of it came shortly after the first confessional was introduced. And you have no cobwebs that old.

That is the precise opposite of the truth. The alternative is a whole floor of sweaters in Bloomingdale's to wander through casually and choosing one which fits your tastes and sensibilities. Sweaters of many colours or coats even.

Religare means to bind. Make them all have the same sweater. Like in banks and on airlines and other places. It makes economic sense. And then some. You couldn't allow nuns to choose their own habits surely? Even National costumes are identical. Sports teams dress identically. Or are supposed to. If you are talking about snootily picking over the dishes in a buffet type of religion then okay. I'm not. I'm talking about the real thing. What Darwin admired so much in its effects upon the tribes of the outlands. It doesn't do frilly, pale pink fringes with cuffs to match. That's playing at it.

So we are at cross purposes. You think ladies fashions can turn mutton into lamb and I don't.

Yes--but what ever the scientific explanations are they can never shake off that they might be the programming of an intelligent designer. They can crash their legs to shake it off all they want but they never can except by believing they have.

All the while taking advantage of the majority who don't believe they have shaken it off to avoid thinking about having to live in a society where everybody does believe they have and that God is not only dead but unheard of and can't even be thought of and thus not dismissed with the wave of the hand. An unperson. Like in Orwell. Or Huxley. The former being much the more likely to be an accurate prophesy. But you never know.

Of course I get your drift. You can't hack it and you've fluffed up a little confection in words to try to make your retreat look dignified. Which it doesn't.

I've heard it all before. The pompous announcement. emos should do foot stamps.

Where to begin??? and there is the added constraint that I am going to take a nap in about two minutes, so I'm going to take just one to say that you are struggling with idea of Evolution and your Church is not.

You think Catholicism is in some danger from Evolution, the Church doesn't.

That's the cause of all your wanderings, some of them interesting, all of them off-topic. You are trying to make the Theory of Evolution a philosophy (hence all the off-road riding through Deism and Origin beliefs, none of which are part of the theory and science of natural selection.) The Church, which you believe is shaking in it's boots, has already done what it's done with every other scientific theory through the ages-- it's found a way to co-exist with it.

Nothing new. The Church was able to go from knowing that there were no lands below the equator to blessing the Portuguese sailors who managed to sail around Africa. It was able to let go of it's firm belief that the Earth was in the center of the Universe, then that the earth was in the center of the Milky Way, then the belief that Milky Way wasn't the only galaxy, then .....ad ... and ad ... .

The Church has alway been able, after a struggle, to accept scientific truth and practice. They used to oppose blood transfusion and intravenous medication including vaccines, now all those are hunky-dory. Today, it's opposed to cloning and abortion, tomorrow, given their history, the Church Fathers will have the finest herds of cloned sheep and cows. Abortion may take the same amount of centuries to change as the vow of chastity, but who knows? What I do know is you are fighting a cause that your Church has already come to terms with, Evolution is the unifying theme of the Science of Biology. Amen.

So, sleep well, I'm going to, your Church is no danger from evolution or the idea of evolution.
===
Oh, one other thing, I don't think, and I have never said, you are stupid and you would be very hard pressed to find any instance of me labeling anyone as such.

Joe(I'm past the age of junior high. Way. )Nation

Thanks. I knew you would see through my cowardice. Your pointed rhetoric cuts me to the quick, but I deserve it.

I'm happy to know that you know what I think Joe but I'm afraid you are wrong because I could not think that as I think that Catholicism is in no danger from anything except maybe a moon sized asteroid colliding with the earth. You might have been better taking your nap a couple of minutes earlier.

But that doesn't mean its influence can't be weakened and the gaps it leaves not filled by competing ideologies. It's another social consequences question. Catholicism itself is safe even if it has to retreat to the mountain tops again.

There are no Pantheists, Dualists, Manichaeans, Gnostics or Deists among my debating opponents. They are all materialists and they employ the word "evolution" in a materialist manner as they have no alternative to doing as such a meaning is implied in the materialist conception and is a subdivision of it. Hence such a meaning is circular. The materialist conception is a philosophy and evolution as used by materialists a logical aspect of it assuming the world is real and not a dream.

I don't not believe that the Church is "shaking in its boots." It has survived heavier onslaughts than the present one. Much heavier ones.

It will never surrender on abortion. That would be a danger to it. But it won't happen. It believes that life is created naturally, as evolution shows, and that once created is sacred. Apart from heretics of course. It doesn't do stop-watches on 20 weeks or whatever. A foetus is continuously becoming. It has no point at which it can be declared one thing and then another when the clock ticks. That's just a legalism.

I don't know enough about the procedures in cloning but I do think the objective is grotesque and is suspected of perfecting the techniques on animals in order to apply them to humans. It is certainly contra evolution principles where differences in organisms is the powerhouse of the process.

The Church has come to terms with evolution as it defines it. It rejects materialism. It's nothing if it doesn't. Another circular argument.

But we can't go on debating a matter when the meaning of evolution is changing from minute to minute. You lot are materialists as far as I can tell. Why don't you say so. Plenty have.

Is materialism a dangerous idea is the real topic. It was neatly laid out in the quote from 285 in the Catechism.

If you are saying that evolution is a unifying theme in the science of biology you are saying that there can be no religious scientists.

I take it that that is one of the facetious comments you predicted you would henceforth confine yourself to Ed.

If I come across something particularly good, I might jump in. You know how we liberals vacillate.

Yes I do. I have met many a young lady dressed to look liberal who turned out pleading her faith when push came to shove.

If you were an evolutionist, you could just clip her in the jaw and then have your way with her. That's how I do it.

With no faith to plead I suppose the lady deserves it if she has been drinking and eating your money all evening and driving you nuts with her conversation.

I don't understand why you think one without gods or faith is different, in the end, from anyone else.

Surely it's the only excuse worth respecting if she has been drinking and eating your money all evening and driving you nuts with her conversation. It's a bit much if she resists after that. It assumes you have been enjoying watching her drinking and eating your money all evening and being driven nuts with her conversation.