tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post112085981342648021..comments2014-02-14T06:00:08.362-08:00Comments on Expert Opinion: The Church's curious op-ed and ID an admitted religious beliefUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1122006160789712842005-07-21T21:22:00.000-07:002005-07-21T21:22:00.000-07:00Here was a lot of creationist belief contra scienc...Here was a lot of creationist belief contra science knowledge. I am sorry that Michael had to stand up for the latter almost alone. But he did that splendidly.<BR/><BR/>pierce:<BR/>Those statistics are US only and seem confounded. Several questions are lumped together and there are no distinction between a religious worldview and major religions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1121974820315614792005-07-21T12:40:00.001-07:002005-07-21T12:40:00.001-07:00Stiber: ... Similarly, the religious beliefs of, a...Stiber: ... Similarly, the religious beliefs of, as you call them, "Darwinists," or as most people call them, scientists (all but a handful of crackpots) is irrelevant (but I'd be very surprised if your 70% figure weren't bogus; I'd guess that the religious affiliations of scientists would be much closer to that of the general population).<BR/><BR/>A 1998 survey of 517 Nat'l Academy of Sciences Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1121974813924398582005-07-21T12:40:00.000-07:002005-07-21T12:40:00.000-07:00It is my understanding that, at some level, the of...<I>It is my understanding that, at some level, the official positions of the Church are considered eternal and infallible.</I><BR/><BR/>Only some positions taken by the pope are considered infallible or fully binding. An op-ed piece by a cardinal in a newspaper is fairly low on the authority scale. (In fact I would regard this as having less authority by Church standards than the letter SchönbornJohn B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00163297234733313179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1121019205948603852005-07-10T11:13:00.000-07:002005-07-10T11:13:00.000-07:00...it's appropriate and proper distinction between...<I><BR/>...it's appropriate and proper distinction between the grand claim that unguided material processes can produce all of bio-complexity, and the non-controversial claim that "things change over time". Keeping the term Darwinism to characterize the former is simply a means of making sure terms aren't swapped. "Evolution is a fact". Fine, but Darwinism isn't (at least not as far as we can Michael Stiberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02164917508588925430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1121017184278811792005-07-10T10:39:00.000-07:002005-07-10T10:39:00.000-07:00Geez, it wasn't hard for evolution to gain tractio...<I>Geez, it wasn't hard for evolution to gain traction as a theory when its only competition were mythological works.</I><BR/><BR/>Seems like that's still the case, except that now the mythological beings are strangely left anonymous.<BR/><BR/>I like science fiction as much as the next guy, and reading about aliens creating life (or our future selves doing such) can be fun and even Michael Stiberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02164917508588925430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1121013919671532342005-07-10T09:45:00.000-07:002005-07-10T09:45:00.000-07:00"The real core of Darwinism . . . is the theory of..."The real core of Darwinism . . . is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaptation, the design of the natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine intervention."<BR/><BR/>Earnst Mayr in the foreword of Michael Ruse's book "Darwinism Defended". This is just one example I was able to find with a 10 Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1120978834636672382005-07-10T00:00:00.000-07:002005-07-10T00:00:00.000-07:00"Evolution has been tested for well over a century..."Evolution has been tested for well over a century. It has been refined and extended as we've learned more about how biology works."<BR/><BR/>Geez, it wasn't hard for evolution to gain traction as a theory when its only competition were mythological works. I mean come on you're talking about a time when geological processes were being elucidated, the enormous geological timescales certainly Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1120968576633026242005-07-09T21:09:00.000-07:002005-07-09T21:09:00.000-07:00"Fine, if it's a religious belief, what is that be...<I><BR/>"Fine, if it's a religious belief, what is that belief exactly?"<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I dunno, that some supernatural entity, which might be God, but on the other hand might be some other supernatural entity (maybe Q?), created living things in some semblance of their current forms? Certainly, I assume that this creation act must have included all "irreducibly complex" biological features.<Michael Stiberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02164917508588925430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1120959207775450342005-07-09T18:33:00.000-07:002005-07-09T18:33:00.000-07:00Fine, if it's a religious belief, what is that bel...Fine, if it's a religious belief, what is that belief exactly?<BR/><BR/>I'm familiar enough with this matter that I thought perhaps by saying "Intelligent Design Institute", you just didn't know what you were talking about. After all, you had just finished calling them "wackos", so it was a bit difficult to discern if you were a typical knee-jerk reactor or if you were informed. <BR/><BR/>You Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1120953746716129002005-07-09T17:02:00.000-07:002005-07-09T17:02:00.000-07:00By "intelligent design institute" I meant the "Dis...By "intelligent design institute" I meant the "Discovery Institute" (DI) of Seattle. I figured those familiar with the topic would know what I meant and the unfamiliar wouldn't care. It's also less obfuscatory than the real name.<BR/><BR/>The cardinal's op-ed piece is only significant to those who feel that a religious leader's opinion is relevant to a scientific matter. And, I believe that most Michael Stiberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02164917508588925430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8626743.post-1120933019415149652005-07-09T11:16:00.000-07:002005-07-09T11:16:00.000-07:00First, who is the "Intelligent Design Institute"?S...First, who is the "Intelligent Design Institute"?<BR/><BR/>Secondly, ID advocates are not pointing to the Cardinal's op-ed on evolution as <I>support</I> for ID. It is what it is, an interesting and significant clarification of position on Darwinian evolution by an influential body. Not only that, but it is yet another branch of theism that has explicitly endorsed ID in some sense, and Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com