Korean Job Discussion Forums

[itaewonguy]

[thepeel]

[mindmetoo]

[Rteacher]

big�ot
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

"Bigot" implies some offensive speech or behavior.

I think that my promoting Vedic culture (as I've understood it) is offensive only to those who manifest their own intolerance by resorting to namecalling, personal attacks, and misrepresentations to defend their own group's tenuous position.

I doubt that any serious Catholic would accept evolution understood to be based on philosophy that promotes a purely materialistic or atheistic worldview.

"Mindmetoo" (in a cruder way) is evidently following the lead of evolutionist writer/scientist, Stephen Gould, who mischaracterizes statements made by the Pope in order to deny religion any intellectual claim on understanding reality (apart from morality...)

"The net of science," says Gould, "covers the empirical universe: what it is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap."

This one-sided division neglects the fact that science has its roots in religion, and it also denies the validity of nonmaterialistic approaches to understanding total reality.

This article looks more closely at what the Pope really stated and how Gould twisted it for his own propaganda purposes:

To argue that the Pope's statement ("new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis") means that "sincere Christians must now accept evolution not merely as a plausible possibility, but also as an effectively proven fact" is ludicrous. Gould almost twists the Pope's statement to contradict what he does say.

In fact, in his next paragraph, the Pope states: "A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them....Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like evolution complies with the need for consistency with observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy."

"Metascientific" means going beyond the realms of science into an abstract, philosophical arena. So, the Pope says, evolution is more than a hypothesis; it is a theory, but as such, it also is "distinct from the result of observation" and borrows from philosophy. His next statement is one Gould may have skipped over:

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations.

So, rather than saying the words Gould puts in his mouth, the Pope actually says that not only is evolution based on a philosophy, but there are several theories, and he goes on to rule out some of them, at least for Roman Catholics. "Theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

Gould wants the Pope to say, "You talk about science, and I'll talk about religion. You can have the world of facts, and I'll take what's left. These areas won't overlap with each other, and we'll each stay in our own gardens." But the Pope is unwilling to follow Gould's convenient (for science) scheme. Instead, he firmly declares "The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man." This is what all of us who are Christians should be saying. Evolution, as it is usually put forward, is not just a theory about ancient data. It is also a philosophical statement about where man came from and what, if any, importance he has. While Gould claims his scientific views are not related to his moral views, his words give little support to this...
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evo-pope.html
Many atheists like to deny the existence of God, but don't want to be labeled atheists, prefering a euphemistic term like "brights".

Calling a spade a spade isn't offensive (unless you're referring to a black guy ... )

[mindmetoo]

[itaewonguy]

[mindmetoo]

[Rteacher]

The quote that "mindmetoo" just posted to show that the "Catholic church happily accepts evolution" was from the introduction of the same speech by Pope John Paul that I quoted from, showing that the Catholic church only really accepts evolution based on a spiritual philosophy.

The writer of my article opined that Gould may have skipped over the subsequent paragraphs ...
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evo-pope.html

[ED209]

[itaewonguy]

You guys can argue until the cows come home! About your THEORY!
FACT IS! You can�t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt!!
It�s all theory! So you can suggest how it happened to me as much as you like! But all your suggestions are similar to atheists asking Christians if Jesus cured the blind!! Christians can show you the bible you guys can show a fossil! But evolutionists still can�t PROVE the origin of MAN!! As Christians can�t prove JESUS walked on water...

CAN�T PROVE IT!! Ill say that one more time for you... CAN�T PROVE IT!!!
You have a scientific theory and that�s all you got...

And like I said... far too many questions unanswered! And far too many holes in the evolution theory which just don�t assemble...

But hey keep believing in science fiction...

I might download star wars tonight and imagine YODA was actually a product of evolution but died out during the ice age!

[itaewonguy]

[mindmetoo]

[mindmetoo]

[mindmetoo]

italewonguy,

Let me break it down this way.

1+__ = 2.

Now based on what we know about math, we can infer the missing number is 1. This is inference. You might argue "well, maybe something else undiscovered satisfies that equation... you can't prove to me there isn't something else!" Well, sure, maybe. But if you make that claim, then demonstrate such.

Science looks at the past. Looks at what we have now. Looks at the mechanisms and forces working on life. And then we infer evolution. We can test the mechanisms of evolution in the lab. Yes, I'm very sorry we can't evolve a bacteria into a bird but then we can't start a new ice age to prove once and for all moraines are the product of glaciation and aren't petrified giant poo. We infer moraines are the product of glaciation because of evidence and the laws of physics. In fact, we infer there was an ice age based on evidence. You don't hear many people hopping on one foot shouting about the lack of lab evidence for ice ages.

Now, let's look at a fellow named Francis Collins. He's a) the head of the human genome project b) a born again christian c) believes in evolution. More importantly he believes in evolution based on the molecular (ie genetic) evidence.

[itaewonguy]