Which is basically paying lip service to science, but saying that at some points in the process "a miracle occurred". That's exactly what the dumb motherfuckers at the Discovery Institute say, but unlike the pope and his cronies, they're too weasely to come out and admit who they think is pulling off the "miracles". Despite what some idiots have said, that's not embracing science. It's corrupting it by injecting untestable bullshit into explanations that don't need it, just to satisfy the emotional needs of the religionistas and their apologists.

And whether you accept it or not, it still happens.

"The earth’s origins were not chaotic, the pontiff said, but were created from a principle of love, reported Religion News Service."

Unadulterated smarm.


This sums it up nicely:

"In catholicism, we just leave out the 'POOF!' That makes us sciencier."



Good read, BMUS--thanks!

In a nutshell, the Pope opines that all began with the Big Bang. I presume PZ will accept that as well, after he throws in some extraneous comment about gay marriage, as he does here.

The difference is whether that was an act of creation or a random event, inadequately explained to date.

From that point, al that folllows, save polygenism, is the same.

If he wants to make a pointed critique rather than polish an attitude, he should ask why the RCC to date opposes polygenism, not evolution.

my favourite phrase for the month!

Good read, thanks BMUS

It seems to me that the predicted "heads exploding" when Francis' words came out are coming from the non-believers and not the believers. As I wrote in another thread on this subject, Darwinian theory of evolution was taught in all 8 of the Catholic schools in Houston, TX in the mid 60s. We don't have a problem with it. You seem to have a problem that we don't have a problem with it.

Instead of addressing the issue of the pope catholicizing evolution for the masses you chose to pick a nit that isn't there.

What's being taught in science class is not the problem.

of Darwinian evolution. But perhaps you can correct us on that. Or confirm that the version of "evolution" that the pope is touting matches exactly with what you allege was taught in Houston in the 60s.

Since I don't have my school books or notes. But even with that would never be enough. You will think the way you do and I will the way I do and as they used to say about east and west, "never the twain shall meet."

That gawd is part of Darwinian evolution, as Blank Frank and his cronies try to paint it. If you ever have actual evidence of that, feel free to present it. But I won't hold my breath.

The basic grounds of offense under all this yatter is that the Pope has affirmed one of the foundational elements of modern science. Since he's not a fundamentalist literalist, the folks who think he should fit that stereotype have to find a way to make him one.

PZ is usually smarter than this. But perhaps he's just playing to his audience.

I can understand why catholics don't like reading unflattering things about the pope, but for some reason you just can't tolerate any criticism of him.

Hell, even some of the most devout catholics are more critical of Francis than you are.

Do you tell people in the LGBT group they're being unfair to the Pope too?





Oh, and please do let PZ know how you feel about his lack of intelligence concerning this issue. I'm sure an evolutionary biologist would love to hear from a potter.

because I'm an artist. Thanks so much.

What I'm arguing against is the strident contention that affirmation of evolution or the Bang is incompatable with religious belief. Re which: Lemaitre was a priest. Fred Hoyle was an atheist. Lemaitre was right.

facts does not exclude the existence of God but it does allow the "freethinker" to twist the first part of the statement into the only conclusion possible and to take that leap of faith to a belief there is no God. It is this leap that allows for their worldview to be possible and becomes a central part of their existence and the struggle against the privileged but deluded and mentally compromised believers.

when others don't think as they do.

It is perhaps the greatest of the many ironies of this group.

My post seems to have inspired a dog pile of folk who become distressed when someone differs with them. It's also interesting that they always seem to be performing for each other, not really attempting to communicate with the posters they're ostensibly responding to.


.

We don't become "distressed" when someone disagrees with us. We respond with facts and logical arguments, as multiple people have done to your steaming post here. It's you who runs away and hides, and does a little dance with your religionista cronies while gasping for substance.

that all thinking is equally rational and all thoughts are equally true. To pretend that it does or should is just laughable intellectual dishonesty. "Freethinkers" reject irrationality and claims that have no evidence to support them or that fly in the face of significant evidence.

I know you and your cronies in the religionistas camp love to play your game of total intellectual relativism, but it really makes you look a bit silly, okasha.

makes a god less and less needed for things to happen like they do. I would posit that freethinkers realize we are at the point that the need for a god to explain anything is basically zero. There is also zero proof for a god otherwise. Which puts the existence of god at zero. And if there is a god, why do we need him?

Is non belief in Santa faith based as well?

Bonus point for the fact that I said nothing about belief in gods.

is a little lacking when compared to that of PZ Myers. No one is calling you a second-class human here besides the pope and the Catholic church. Many of us are just shocked that you doggedly defend him and his institution (that officially teaches you are "intrinsically disordered&quot .

You're deflecting again. It's what you do. Which is why you are constantly at odds with people here who don't care what your sexual identity is or what your ethnicity is or what do for a living. Yet you bring up those things about yourself to build straw men which you can then attack rather than just give a straight answer to a question.

Then you complain about persecution when we don't take you seriously.

If you want that to mean you are a second-class human, that's all on you.

I'm not a biologist either. Doesn't mean I'm second class. It's just me admitting my limited knowledge. I would assume you are a significantly better artist than Dawkins (and me, for that matter). Doesn't make him a second-class human. Just makes him not a good artist.

isn't the issue. The Pope, PZ and I all agree that H. sap. and other species all arrived at their present condition via natural selection/evolution. That's a no-brainer. Ditto the Bang.

Where I disagree with PZ and do agree with Francis is on the existence of a divine, creative force. What PZ has done, and what you're doing, is asserting that acceptance of evolutionary theory must necessarily coincide with atheism. It boils down to the specious and self-congratulatory proposition that you can't do or fully accept science and be a believer at the same time.

I do have the life experience and expertise in theology to know that that's USDA Prime bullshit. It's just another meme to assert that your dog's better.

to make your pathetic case.

No, the pope DOESN'T think that humans came about by completely natural means. He thinks that somewhere in the process god stuck his hand in and "a Miracle occurred". That's not remotely scientific or rational. Nor, in this case, are you. No brainer, you say? Yeppers.

I'm sure a poster like NYC SKP would have a confident diagnosis about whatever Syndrome or childhood trauma might have caused a mental anomaly like this. He certainly does that frequently with atheists, with the full support of people like okasha here. But the possibilities are so numerous that I, not being a professional like NYC SKP, would not care to speculate.

one tends to ignore those pesky facts that get in the way of one's agenda.

one tends to ignore those pesky facts that get in the way of one's agenda.

But that is a different discussion.

I am not asserting that the acceptance of evolution, alone, is reason to dismiss the concept of a god. Please don't oversimplify what I am saying, or deliberately misstate it, or both. I am saying that this is another step in showing that those things which we previously thought were "from god" are actually able to be explained though other means. The amount of "need" for god as an explanation is ever dwindling. It's not just about evolution. It's about everything. There is no need for a god to explain anything. And there is no evidence for a god otherwise.

So if you want to believe in a god. Fine. But hopefully you can understand that for a lot of others of us it makes no sense.

You lash out at someone referring to you as a potter, as if that makes you a second class citizen, but you're a defender and apologist for an organization that considers you, as a lesbian, "disordered" and not entitled to full human rights.

Very, very sad. I wonder what NYC Skp would have to say, in his "professional experience"?

Oh, wait, that would be hateful and intolerant.



If someone on DU suggested that LGBT people are emotionally disturbed because they've been victimized by heterosexuals they would be banned. And rightly so.



But it's perfectly okay to say the same thing about atheists.

In what world does calling someone who makes pottery a potter make them a second class human?


And you weren't arguing against anything, you questioned PZ's intelligence because he dissed your pope and you can't tolerate that.

I simply pointed out the fact that you're not qualified to critique Myer's grasp of evolutionary biology or dismiss his justifiable anger at being lied to by the media and apologists.


But it's the homophobic, misogynistic white guy who needs protection from the big bad atheists.

That makes perfect sense.

If I questioned anything, it was the intelligence of his audience. I assume that is what has upset some of your buddies.

Fact is I usually like PZ. He's been a strong champion for the atheist women who have been harassed and threatened by the online Littul Boyz Club. As far as I'm concerned, that makes him one of the good guys.

You give the misogynistic, homophobic Pope your blessing while spewing hatred towards atheists because of a few jerks who post mean stuff on teh interwebs.


Because the religious leader who is doing everything in his power to make sure LGBT people and women remain second class humans is one of the "good guys"? Wtf?


Sexist atheists aren't the ones sponsoring draconian anti-reproductive rights laws.

None of the atheists and anti-theists here really give a fuck about LGBT rights. According to her, we just use it as an excuse to bash religion (which, of course doesn't DESERVE to be bashed).

Better content, please.

or even an attempt at substance characterizes your post much better than the OP, which went into detail to correct a blatant and highly publicized misconception. And if it used a little scorn to address foolishness, dishonesty and willful ignorance, well...that's what those things warrant sometimes.

If you want better content, talk to the Vatican..they're the ones spewing PR bullshit.

The apologists who support it and/or look the other way deserve that and worse.

Your opinion of the content is noted but irrelevant.

Thanks for noticing.

I rage against religious influence because I care.

Watching Amendment 1 pass in Tennessee thanks to religious people who think they have the right to take my rights away is more infuriating than you can imagine.

Women will die because of it.

And that's just one example of how people suffer because of religion.

Yes, I am angry.

There is some beauty there as well.

Most feminists don't want to force men to carry children, most LGBT people don't want to stop heteros from getting married.

And most atheists, angry or otherwise, don't want to take away the rights of religious people.


The angry atheist meme is used by religious bigots to marginalize us, and I'm not willing to let that go on DU.



Yes, I am very, very angry, but not at religious people because they believe in gods and not for any of the other reasons the anti-atheists want you to believe.

for hatred and bigotry. That's fair.

It has nothing to do with personal religious beliefs and everything to do with the fact that religious people try to make everyone else live by their rules.

the tone trolls and psychoscolds come out of the woodwork to tut-tut over anger directed at religion, but when it comes to similar anger directed at Republicans, they're nowhere to be seen.

...from the oppressive, unrepresented 10%.

It's a hell of party we have here, isn't it?

Some hatred and bigotry comes right from it. Putting on blinders and/or rose-colored glasses and pretending that religion is always pure and good and wonderful, is wrong on two counts:

1) That's not the case. Religion can be ugly, and it isn't because someone is misusing it.
2) It fosters bigotry toward non-believers, implying that true believers can do no wrong, that it's people who aren't really believers causing the problems.