|
||||
|
|
|
||
 |
 |
|
|
|
 realitybasedcommunity.net - writings on establishment clause, free exercise, free speech, free press, copyright, trademark, right of publicity, media law, defamation, new media law. about scott pilutik. "I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state." - George W. Bush, slipping freudianistically to the press on January 29, 2001.
archives
June 2008 | May 2008 | April 2008 | March 2008 | February 2008 | January 2008 | December 2007 | October 2007 | September 2007 | August 2007 | July 2007 | June 2007 | April 2007 | March 2007 | February 2007 | December 2006 | November 2006 | September 2006 | August 2006 | July 2006 | June 2006 | May 2006 | January 2006 | December 2005 | November 2005 | October 2005 | September 2005 | August 2005 | July 2005 | June 2005 | May 2005 | April 2005 | March 2005 | February 2005 | January 2005 | December 2004 | November 2004 | October 2004 | |
|
|
|
Archives for April 2007 April 11, 2007 the pope weighs in on evolution
Continuing along the same obfuscatory path carved out by his former pupil Chistoph Cardinal Schönborn, the Pope has set forth a series of contradictory edicts on the creationism v. evolution 'debate': The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.The article is careful to point out that the Pope did not endorse creationism or ID, but in essence, that's precisely what he did. Both creationism and ID are almost entirely comprised of negative arguments against evolution. Creationism's only affirmative argument is the Book of Genesis, which evolution effectively either disproves or renders into an abstraction. ID's affirmative argument is that God must exist and be the cause of life because 'life is complex,' an argument that science renders unscientific. In short, the affirmative arguments for ID and creationism can be written with a sharpie on a matchbook. The vast swath of babble in support of either proposition is comprised merely of negative arguments against evolution, and so both arguments instead concentrate on undermining the scientific underpinnings of evolution. The canard that "evolution can't be proven because it can't be demonstrated in a laboratory setting" is trotted out daily by the Pope's fellow travelers, such as Ann Coulter, who quoted David Berlinski in her most recent published screeching: This notion that there is somewhere a computer model of the evolutionary development of the eye is an urban myth. Such a model does not exist. There is no such model anywhere in any laboratory. No one has the faintest idea how to make one.By the time anyone reads this (does anyone read this?) Panda's Thumb will no doubt supply a list of ways that evolution is proven in laboratory settings, after which, no doubt, someone will note that this falls short because the Pope's statement set the bar a tad higher: "...mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory." The Pope's statement, read as literally as His Followers might prefer, seems to lament the lack of thousand plus year old laboratory experiments, which is kind of like criticizing astronomy for identifying galaxies no one has ever visited. Also worth noting about the Pope's sudden high threshold for certainty is the utter lack of evidence for various claims made by the Catholic Church over the last 20 centuries. Not that anyone's waiting on laboratory experiments proving the authenticity of various items, but the Catholic Church, in particular, has controlled the flow of much of the information that constitutes the body of evidence for Christianity, and has, at various points in history, squelched and censored what didn't fit within The Program. Where science honestly and transparently permits what it considers to be common knowledge to be altered in light of additional and contrary evidence, knowledge within religion is inherently anti-democratic, as it flows only from self-appointed (or institutionally self-appointed) divine sources. In other words, why should anyone who isn't Catholic listen to anything the Pope has to say about science? posted by scott pilutik at April 11, 2007 01:06 PM
digg |
del.icio.us |
reddit April 07, 2007 What would Jesus really do?
When did it come to the point that being a Christian meant caring about only two issues, abortion and homosexuality?Like so many other things, it all comes down to king of the semiotic hill. That words retain multiple meaning is especially true for supercharged character-defining labels like "Christian," but present-time media discourse doesn't permit a vast range of meanings--rather, it permits one or two. When media the stood behind Bush and his post 9/11 clout, seemingly overnight we witnessed an unprecedented swarm of news commentators providing us with the "Christian" take, which was almost entirely conservatively slanted. And while the Christian left has been largely silent, it's not entirely the Christian left's fault, as there is limited mediated podium space for those labeled Christians, and the right aggressively sought that space while the left stood dazed, as if a game of musical chairs was being played where only those on the right could hear the music. Hopefully that dynamic is changing, if CNN giving Roland Martin prominent column space (linked from home page) is any indication. posted by scott pilutik at April 7, 2007 12:51 PM
digg |
del.icio.us |
reddit |
|
|
contact | site powered by movabletype Site content licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License |