CraigD Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 One wonders what the Catholic prelates and cardinals of the 16th Century felt when confronted by Galileo's outrageous evidence that the Earth went around the sun.In fairness to the Catholic church, and in no way denying or defending their persecution of Copernecus or Galileo, we should note that the Roman Catholic Church’s current stated position on the current Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate is that the theory of Evolution does not contradict church doctrine, and that ID is not good Science – see 4537. The Evolution vs. ID debate, and, acrimony between scientists and religionists in general seems at present to be being promoted mostly by a fairly small group of American protestants. Other deeply religious people do not seem to feel that Evolution is a threat to their beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 In fairness to the Catholic church, ...seems at present to be being promoted mostly by a fairly small group of American protestants. Other deeply religious people do not seem to feel that Evolution is a threat to their beliefs.I not only accept and agree, I also concur.I have yet to meet any Methodists or Presbyterians or other "mainstream" Christians who have expressed any fondness for ID or any fear of Evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Fusion and TeleMad,both good posts. You have made me think. ("OUCH! STOP!")What we have here is a dilemma.We would like to use the word "proof" (or "prove") to mean the act of assembling a body of evidence and/or constructing a body of logic so convincing that people of sufficient education and rationality must perforce accept the conclusion.Notice that nowhere in this definition did I use the word "Truth" or pull anything out of my sleeve. The key words are "accept the conclusion". On the other five-digited extremity, if we tie "proof" to our ability to convince, then we open ourselves up to those folks who think the tactic of "denial of acceptance" is both clever and logically meaningfull. => "If you can't convince me (and you NEVER will, because I will NEVER relent), then you have NOT proved anything! Ta-dahh!" It may be true that we cannot prove anything to THEM, and it may be true that "proving" something to those already biased in our favor doesn't count for anything, but we can still "prove". We can amass evidence and logic and allow it to speak for itself. We can take note of the numbers and kinds of thoughtful people who are willing to open their minds to it, to consider it, to mindfully debate it, and to rationally express their opinions of it. And if the (vast) majority of those kinds of people agree with the conclusion that (we say) follows from the evidence and logic, then to that extent, we may say we have "proved" our point. We have convinced. And what of the nay-sayers? They shall continue to shout that we have proved nothing because we did not (and CANNOT) convince them. We must be fair and allow them the freedom to have their own opinions. (Though, sometimes I think their opinions have them.) We cannot drag them along, kicking and screaming against their will. However, in the Grand Marketplace of Ideas, these concepts do battle on a level far above our petty desires and ambitions. And we must trust that eventually, the evidence and the logic will take the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 No, Pyrotex, it is not that simple.One wonders what the Catholic prelates and cardinals of the 16th Century felt when confronted by Galileo's outrageous evidence that the Earth went around the sun.Many of them, including the Pope that later had him under the Inquisition, agreed with him very much, despite the fact that evidence was far from outrageous at the time. Hard to believe? :surprise: Pyrotex 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 No, Pyrotex, it is not that simple. Many of them, including the Pope that later had him under the Inquisition, agreed with him...What!?!?!?!? I was promised simplicity. It's here in my contract.Seriously, I believe you are correct, for the most part. Weren't there TWO Popes involved in this rucus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qfwfq Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 The Pope changed, but the one before Urban wasn't as much involved. I'll look if I have a bit of time at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 The Pope changed, but the one before Urban wasn't as much involved. I'll look if I have a bit of time at home.Yes, Urban it was. The one before him must have been Suburban.I remember seeing the the historical docu-drama on Galileo about a year ago. Urban was a cardinal and Galileo approached him with his discoveries. Urban was mostly agreeable though cautiously. Galileo took this as encouragement which it may NOT have been. Urban became Pope. Galileo tried to use Urban as a "reference" and Urban took umbrage at this. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the romantic cynic Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 No, summer, it is not that simple.Evolution is already "in" the classroom because it has successfully explained the order of the biological realm without resorting to superstition or the supernatural. Science is impossible if you resort to the supernatural. It isn't "science" then. It is religion.The Theory of Evolution has as much "proof" as the Theory of Gravity. We know "how" gravity works, but we don't know (yet) what "makes" it work. This is no excuse to teach school kids they can jump from the roofs of their houses.The "proverbial tantrum" you spoke of, in fact, never happened. Not in the schoolrooms where ID was debated, nor in the courtrooms where it was kept out of the schoolroom. Evolution has massive evidence on its side. ID has NO evidence at all. None. Not the first shadow of a glimmer of a shred of evidence. One wonders what the Catholic prelates and cardinals of the 16th Century felt when confronted by Galileo's outrageous evidence that the Earth went around the sun. They felt like you feel, summer. like i said before evidence should never be confused with proof. "a lack of evidence of one belief is not conclusive proof to the contrary" therefore. i neither can be proven neither should be taught. and you're right, it is most certainly not simple. that would be the one point. that i would recall everything else i say still stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 like i said before evidence should never be confused with proof. ...But as stated in other posts, "proof" does not exist, not as the tangible, palpable, solid thing you are demanding. ALL we have is evidence and logic. that is all we will ever have. Since you will exclude ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in the Universe as NOT PROOF, therefore your mind is closed. You are willfully blind and you sound like you are arrogant about it as well.[sigh]I'm sure your God is very proud of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the romantic cynic Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 But as stated in other posts, "proof" does not exist, not as the tangible, palpable, solid thing you are demanding. ALL we have is evidence and logic. that is all we will ever have. Since you will exclude ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in the Universe as NOT PROOF, therefore your mind is closed. You are willfully blind and you sound like you are arrogant about it as well.[sigh]I'm sure your God is very proud of you. first of all your sarcasm is hurtfull, i am not demanding proof, i know it does not exist, i am merely pointing it out.even if i did not believe in God, evolution would make no sense to me. also beware if you mind is too open you brain might fall out,(sigh)i'm sure you're very proud of youself Pyrotex 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 first of all your sarcasm is hurtfullI apologize. :gift: i am not demanding proof, i know it does not exist, i am merely pointing it out. even if i did not believe in God, evolution would make no sense to me.Okay, but that may be a limitation of your education, your culture, or the family environment you grew up in. Some people have attempted to "prove" evolution is stupid because THEY couldn't understand it. But there are a lot of perfectly valid things that lots of us don't understand. beware if you mind is too open you brain might fall out. (sigh)i'm sure you're very proud of yourselfOH!! You got me!!! Touche! :surprise: Goodbye, cruel world... aarrrrggghhhhhh.... [flop] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the romantic cynic Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 pyrotex, it is obvious that we will never come top a conclusion. i will never change you and you will never change me. with that i leave you to your evolutionary theories. sincerely summer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 ...i leave you to your evolutionary theories.bye summer. best of luck with your religious beliefs. take care.sincerely, px Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.