Evolution: Theory or Dogma?
TWO headteachers at a Scottish primary school who allowed members of a US creationist Christian religious sect into classrooms have been removed from their posts, it emerged last night.
Headteacher Alexandra MacKenzie and her deputy Elizabeth Mockus – who job-share at Kirktonholme Primary School in East Kilbride – are to be “redeployed” to backroom duties while South Lanarkshire Council carries out an investigation,
Education chiefs want to determine why the Church of Christ sect had been allowed into the school to work as classroom assistants for the last eight years.
South Lanarkshire Council last night issued a statement confirming both senior teachers had been removed from their posts and temporary headteachers put in their place.
Click on picture to read Scotsman report in full.
Comments (117)
Theistic Evolution is conceptually and theologically incompatible with the neo-Darwinist theories which currently hold general consensus among materialist scientists and philosophers.
According to these theories, the fundamental mechanism of evolution itself relies upon the death of organisms, including the death of humans and our progenitors. This view is incompatible with Christianity because of the doctrine that death originates from the sin of Adam. Therefore, Adam could not have been created through a process requiring death as the principle mechanism.
If Christianity is compatible with Evolution, it is certainly not the Evolution which is taught in our schools and universities. It is a different theory. We could call it ‘progressive creationism’. A completely made up concept.
How mad is it that atheistic materialists say there is apparent design in nature, but that there is no designer. On the other hand Theistic Evolutionist Christians say there is no apparent design in nature, but there is a designer!
Every society needs an explanation of their origins. Atheists and materialists need Evolution to give legitimacy to their atheism and materialism. Why have Christians abandoned their own divinely revealed account of origins, and adopted instead someone else’s? Madness.
There is no scientific evidence that disproves special creation.
Evolutionists admit there are problems with the theory. They continue to believe it, because for them, it is the only plausible hypothesis. And they believe that precisely because they are materialists!
A belief in Evolution can have subtle negative consequences on the psychology of a Christian. They may lack a deep rooted trust in the providence of God in creation. I certainly did. My faith is stronger now that I’m a creationist.
This response is only coherent if we assume that by “christianity” you mean christian fundamentalism. There are other theologies that don’t take stories with talking animals as science texts.
As for your other comments, atheism isn’t illegitimate if we don’t understand the origins of the universe any more than not believing in thor is illegitimate if we do not understand the origins of lightning. Ignorance is not a sound basis for a worldview, and not understanding something doesn’t make it unreasonable for me not to believe an unverifiable claim about it. I wish the words “I don’t know” were in more peoples’ vocabularies.
“There is no scientific evidence that disproves special creation.”
It depends what you mean by special creation. There is loads of evidence that life was not created in it’s present form, though you are correct that there is no proof that the first life was not created. There is also no proof it was not created by allah.
“Evolutionists admit there are problems with the theory. They continue to believe it, because for them, it is the only plausible hypothesis. And they believe that precisely because they are materialists!”
I believe you are alluding to an out of context quote which, in context, doesn’t mean what it’s purported to mean on anti-science websites (there are many such quotes).
“A belief in Evolution can have subtle negative consequences on the psychology of a Christian. They may lack a deep rooted trust in the providence of God in creation. I certainly did. My faith is stronger now that I’m a creationist.”
I’m sure peoples’ beliefs wax, wane, calm down or get more passionate over their lifetimes for a number of reasons. As a skeptic however I don’t think absolute conviction is a good thing, unless you happen to be infallible. Are you infallible?
By Christianity I meant ‘Catholic Catholicism’ aka Catholicism (contrasted with Catholic Modernism, Protestantism, the fundamentalism you speak of etc..)
Contrary to what you might believe, Catholics must indeed believe in the words of Scripture in the literal sense. They are forbidden to hold views such as the Sacred Scriptures contain error, or mythology.
Such a view is not exclusive to fundamentalist American Protestants. That was a lie I was fed so I would accept Theistic Evolution.
I have not alluded to any quotes from any websites anywhere.
By Christianity I meant ‘Catholic Catholicism’ aka Catholicism (contrasted with Catholic Modernism, Protestantism, the fundamentalism you speak of etc..)”
To me christianity is an umbrella term that includes all sects similar to the way islam is a general term that includes many different sects.
“Contrary to what you might believe, Catholics must indeed believe in the words of Scripture in the literal sense. They are forbidden to hold views such as the Sacred Scriptures contain error, or mythology.”
Didn’t the pope (two popes ago) say that evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis and that it was supported by a great deal of evidence? As for taking scripture literally why are you required to do that? Didn’t catholics who took the bible literally conclude the sun revolved around the earth too? The scripture they based that on is still there. How do you deal with that? Not to mention why would you take stories with talking animals literally? Isn’t that a pretty big clue that it’s not meant to be taken literally? And some books of the bible are poetry, how do you take poetry literally? How can a poem be infallible? This is without getting into the problems with translation and dead languages that existed centuries before the first dictionaries where we often don’t really know exactly what words meant or what the connotations surrounding them were. The actual, supposedly infallible texts don’t really exist anymore in any meaningful sense.
“Such a view is not exclusive to fundamentalist American Protestants. That was a lie I was fed so I would accept Theistic Evolution.”
I think fundamentalism was in doubt and seen as conflicting with empirical observations before evolution came along.
“I have not alluded to any quotes from any websites anywhere.”
The bit you said about scientists accepting evolution despite it’s absurdity because of their commitment to materialism (roughly paraphrasing) is almost identical to a quote from one scientist that is often bandied about appearing to say just that and is used to make the claim that acceptance of evolution is based on ideological bias and that evolution is absurd etc, but in context the meaning is nowhere near that.
To answer your question, the Pope was John Paul II, and I can tell you he said a lot of daft things.
Catholics are not obliged to give intellectual assent to the private opinions of Pontiffs. You have made the classic error of distorting the authority of the Pope and the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
Catholics are absolutely forbidden to believe in Polygenism (Pius XII pp. Humani Generis)
So to try to clarify you are saying that popes (who are elected by the rest of the church) say daft things and should by no means be taken seriously, but you quote another pope and say that catholics are obliged to take what he said seriously (and are forbidden from disagreeing). Is this the whole “he sat in a special chair when he wrote it so it’s infallible” thing? And regardless it’s hard to make the case that all catholics must believe something that not even all popes in recent memory believed.
Agnophilo,
Sorry, friend, but it is thee who is saying daft things now – it’s important to understand the extent and limits of any authority figure, from your local bobby on the beat (if only they weren’t all swanning around in cars, blue lights flashing) to the local librarian to the Pope.
Then you’ll see that when the Pope speaks about a matter that has always been believed – such as the (common sense) belief that the human race is descended from one man and one woman (ask any DNA expert) that it is a binding teaching. When he tells us to pray a few swears with witches and warlocks, we are under no obligation to obey and, indeed, to the contrary, we are obliged to NOT obey.
That’s because his duty is to teach only that which has always been taught, never to introduce new teachings. Just as your local bobby can’t decide to introduce new laws, so the Pope has to stick like glue to what he has received and pass it on to the rest of us.
Get it now? Don’t feel daft, though – we all make mistakes. I’m bound to make one some day as well. Indeed, if you listen to my enemies, you’d think I made one-a-minute. Numpties!
First of all it’s insulting to keep insinuating I am dense every response as though I’m too stupid to grasp your glorious lessons, when we are simply having a conversation here and I am asking you what you believe. Second, that humans descended from one man and one woman is true in the sense that you can trace everyone’s ancestry back to two people at some point, but that there were only two people at the beginning of humanity is not universally or permanently held to be true, as evidenced by the many catholics who no longer accept this (not to mention those genetics experts you refer to) and the christians who believe adam and eve are symbolic or that god created other humans (rather than starting humanity off with incest and inbreeding, which would not exactly be wise, let alone moral by biblical standards). And third, how does an idea being older or once having been universally held to be correct make it correct? Geocentrism is older than heliocentrism, alchemy is older than chemistry and so on. Older ideas are often ignorant, wrong or downright superstitious. Not to mention these rules are arbitrary, nowhere does the bible say any of this.
You have this complex web of rules to appeal to where one rule justifies another that justifies another that justifies another but if you try to untangle them I think you will find that they are at some point circular.
Agnophilo,
I do not mean to insult you at all. You’re not remotely “dense” and I’m very sorry to have given that impression. Mea culpa – big time. My sense of humour sometimes gets the better of me, but no offence intended, be assured.
Now to the points you make: with respect, it really doesn’t make sense to say that at some point we had two parents but before that there were many. That is much harder to believe and make sense of than the traditional belief in descent from two parents at the beginning of the world.
Now to the argument about incest in the brother-sister biblical intermarriages. In the beginning, Genesis teaches, God made everything “good” – i.e free from defects. Harmful mutations would take many generations to build to the point where close intermarriage would be dangerous for the offspring.
Incest is wrong now because of the passage of time, the problem of mutations and the likelihood of causing deformities in offspring but at the beginning that was not the case.
That’s the answer in a nutshell – obviously there’s plenty more that could be said and I’m sure you’d find some interesting material on the DaylightOrigins website, since it’s now time for me to go pubbing and clubbing (kidding!)
Before I disappear, however, please let me assure you that what you see as a “complex web of rules”, is really a beautiful and completely coherent whole. Worth studying, Agnophilo and you are welcome to do so with us on this blog. We’ll do our best to answer your questions – that’s a promise.
Agnophile,
” Is this the whole “he sat in a special chair when he wrote it so it’s infallible” thing?”
I can’t help noticing that you pick up editor on her every word telling her you think she’s being “snotty” yet you are constantly being sarcastic to other bloggers as, for example, the above statement in your comment to Miles Immaculatae. That is double standards in my book.
I would have thought you would know that Catholics don’t have to accept every word the Pope says, there are different levels of authority, also that you would know the Church is in a crisis and statements like Pope John Paul II made about evolution are his own opinion and not binding on Catholics.
So then how can he quote one pope as proof against another pope’s statements? And I am sorry if my comments offended you. In my book it’s one thing to insult a person and another to insult their beliefs. I am not offended if you disagree with, mock or eviscerate any view that I hold. In fact if you do so successfully than I am in your debt, because you’ve helped me improve my beliefs. I think the arbitrary set of rules surrounding the pope is absurd as is the whole notion of papal infallibility which was established about 200 years ago. Apparently the popes are so infallible it took about 250 popes 18 centuries to figure it out.
The whole thing is absurd. I am sorry if saying so offends you, but it is.
Agnophilo,
Your comments don’t offend me, they just show ignorance of the Church and the papacy. From the very beginning of the Church, it was understood that in some things the Pope must be obeyed but in others where he is expressing a personal view, we don’t. St Paul went to Jerusalem to consult Peter over a matter of belief, whether the first Gentile converts had to first become Jews before being Christians, showing that the Pope was the ultimate authority in matters of faith and Paul and the others recognised this by going to Jerusalem to see him. But when Peter, the first Pope was being hypocritical on a less important matter, i.e. dietary laws, Paul stood up to him and disagree with him. It’s never been that any pope has been treated either as “one of the boys” or as a divine being.
Papal infallibility was not “established” in 1870, it was just defined then. If you study Catholicism you will find that over and over again dogmas are defined, usually when there is some dispute and the Pope has to settle the doubts. Another good example is that study reveals how the first Christians always believed that Mary was assumed into Heaven but it wasn’t until 1950 that the Pope defined that as an infallible dogma of faith.
It’s easy to caricature the Church, but the whole thing is not “absurd” – it’s important to study it properly and not rely on cheap shots from atheist sites to really understand Catholic teaching.
“Agnophilo, Your comments don’t offend me, they just show ignorance of the Church and the papacy.”
You haven’t showed me anything I was really ignorant about.
“From the very beginning of the Church, it was understood that in some things the Pope must be obeyed but in others where he is expressing a personal view, we don’t. St Paul went to Jerusalem to consult Peter over a matter of belief, whether the first Gentile converts had to first become Jews before being Christians, showing that the Pope was the ultimate authority in matters of faith and Paul and the others recognised this by going to Jerusalem to see him. But when Peter, the first Pope was being hypocritical on a less important matter, i.e. dietary laws, Paul stood up to him and disagree with him. It’s never been that any pope has been treated either as “one of the boys” or as a divine being.”
So then why is the pope to be ignored when he says atheists will go to heaven if they live a good life? Isn’t that a spiritual matter? And did peter have to sit in a special chair with special vestments and use a special seal and all of that in order to be “infallible”? It seems to me like the system is designed to use the pope as a source of authority while also giving fine print to allow people to ignore him pretty much whenever they wish. You catholics want to have your unleavened cake and eat it too.
“Papal infallibility was not “established” in 1870, it was just defined then. If you study Catholicism you will find that over and over again dogmas are defined, usually when there is some dispute and the Pope has to settle the doubts.”
Before that wasn’t the pope assumed to be actually infallible? Then around the time we invented books and newspapers and the average man could read the bible themselves and see that he wasn’t they invented the special chair/seal/whatever procedure.
“Another good example is that study reveals how the first Christians always believed that Mary was assumed into Heaven but it wasn’t until 1950 that the Pope defined that as an infallible dogma of faith.”
So the pope what, went to heaven and checked? You say he isn’t considered some kind of divine being but then attribute impossible, supernatural and exclusive abilities to him. Personally I think they just went with that claim because it was impossible to contradict.
“It’s easy to caricature the Church, but the whole thing is not “absurd” – it’s important to study it properly and not rely on cheap shots from atheist sites to really understand Catholic teaching.”
The catholic church has been around a long time and has amassed more than it’s fair share of scandals and absurdities. To use the term “infallible” in conjunction with the papacy in light of recent scandals… absurd is being extremely polite about it.
Oh and I didn’t get any of the stuff I am talking about with you from atheist websites. I got my information from talking to catholics about what they believe. I didn’t just go to “I hate catholics.com” or something.
Miles Immaculatae,
I strongly recommend that you read Pope Leo XIII’s landmark encyclical on Sacred Scripture, Providentissimus Deus:
15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires.
Now, there are all sorts of different genres in Scripture, not all to be taken literally – think about it. You know that. You know that there is history in there, and poetry/hymns of praise (psalms) and there are parables – stories which teach us something of morality and virtue. We needn’t believe there was an actual “publican” and an actual “tax collector”etc. You already know this, so you do understand the nature of Scripture but so many Catholics tend to say (despite this knowledge) that every verse of Scripture must be interpreted literally. That is not the teaching of the Church. Check out Providentissimus Deus here
You are totally correct, however, to say that Scripture contains no error or “mythology”.
Editor and Agnophilo,
I’m afraid you both took me too literally.
I used clumsy language. Probably a dichotomous reaction to those Catholics who erroneously assert that there is absolutely nothing in Sacred Scripture which can be taken literally whatsoever. You know the type.
Agnophilo
it’s hard to make the case that all catholics must believe something that not even all popes in recent memory believed
I assure you. No Pope in recent history has publicly professed his desbelief in Monogensim. Not even John Paul II.
Is this the whole “he sat in a special chair when he wrote it so it’s infallible” thing?
You are spot on. You know how it works. I don’t need to clarify. Essentially, if the Supreme Pontiff were heard sleep talking and said in his sleep “Kill the French! Kill the French!”…
There would be no moral obligation for us to wage war with France.
That’s an absurd example. But I like dichotomies.
Agnophilo,
None of us is infallible but the Church is – and the Church teaches the inerrancy of Scripture. St Augustine said: “I should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church” (Con. epist. Manichaei, fundam., n. 6). It is crystal clear from the Book of Genesis that God created the world – THAT truth is the central revelation of Genesis. God created the world.
You write:
“…you are correct that there is no proof that the first life was not created. There is also no proof it was not created by allah.”
With all due respect to our Muslim brothers and sisters, “Allah” did not come into being himself for centuries after Christ, and since Christ is on record assuring us that “Before Abraham was, I am..” (ie, Christ existed from all eternity) I think we can be pretty certain that “Allah” is not the Creator.
First of all christianity pre-dating islam no more discredits it than judaism pre-dating christianity discredits christianity. Second, there are many versions of the story of jesus and many interpretations and translations of those versions, I am sure the ones you adhere to are not the ones most muslims would consider true. And third claiming something (actually in this case claiming someone claimed something) is not proof of the claim, it’s merely the claim. It is a foregone conclusion that the bible’s contents are accurate only to the people who believe that, usually for the same reasons (indoctrination, cultural biases) that people believe other books are of divine origin and infallible. To a non-christian quoting scripture as a source of authority means as much as quoting the quran would mean to you.
Agnophilo,
Wrong. Christianity pre-dating Islam does indeed discredit Islam. An elementary principle of theology is that God cannot change; He cannot contradict Himself. Thus the two contradictory visits from the Archangel Gabriel (sent by God) to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first century to announce the coming of the long awaited Messiah, the universal Saviour, and the experience of Muhammed, several centuries later, who is to announce “Allah” and a very different message, cannot both be true. Which was first?
The many version of the Jesus “story” as you put it. stem from the schisms through history – breakaway groups who rejected the teaching authority of the only Church founded by Christ – the Catholic Church. Those “versions” are just as you say “versions”: they have no authority. You’ll find that only in the Catholic Church.
Your final claim about the Bible only have meaning for believers falls at the first hurdle; “converts” in the nature of things, were, at one time, NOT believers.
“Wrong. Christianity pre-dating Islam does indeed discredit Islam. An elementary principle of theology is that God cannot change; He cannot contradict Himself.”
That pretty much contradicts the entire bible then, because god contradicts himself constantly. Kill your neighbor, I mean set your neighbor on fire, no I mean love your neighbor and treat him as you would want him to treat you. And eating pork makes you unclean, no wait it doesn’t and actually it never did. And don’t work on the sabbath and anyone who does should be put to death. Oh, why did I work on the sabbath? I am my own father and told myself to to it! Oh and incest is bad and by the way I impregnated my own mom. And it was without her consent while she was married – don’t do that (except for the rape part that’s okay, as long as she’s forced to marry you later on pain of death).
I could literally go on for hours and hours and hours. The bible is absolutely bonkers if you really read it.
“Thus the two contradictory visits from the Archangel Gabriel (sent by God) to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first century to announce the coming of the long awaited Messiah, the universal Saviour, and the experience of Muhammed who is to announce “Allah” and a very different message, cannot both be true.”
Oh I agree they’re mutually exclusive, but so are in many ways christianity and judaism.
“The many version of the Jesus “story” as you put it. stem from the schisms through history – breakaway groups who rejected the teaching authority of the only Church founded by Christ – the Catholic Church. Those “versions” are just as you say “versions”: they have no authority. You’ll find that only in the Catholic Church.”
Do you get that you are only saying that because you belong to one particular break away sect created by one such schism? Every member of every religion thinks theirs is the right one. And truth is not determined by authority, it is what it is regardless of what people say about it. If the pope sits in the special chair with the special stamp when the moon is just right or whatever the procedure is and says the earth is flat, that does not make it so. Nor is the earth round because anyone said it’s round. It is true regardless. If a god exists (of any religion or of no religion) and that god by it’s will designed the universe, then in a sense the universe is a certain way by that being’s authority. But that is not an authority any human can remotely claim to possess.
“Your final claim about the Bible only have meaning for believers falls at the first hurdle; “converts” in the nature of things, were, at one time, NOT believers.”
Historically this conversion usually takes place when they are toddlers or have a sword to their throat. Either way they are, as I said, no more convinced by the authority of a text they do not see as an authority than you would be convinced by a few passages from some other religion’s holy book to join that religion.
Agnophilo,
There are few things so painful as witnessing a non-believer/atheist/agnostic/evolutionist trying to show how much they know about the Bible.
What they ACTUALLY show, however, is how little they know about the Bible. If they showed such ignorance about any other book in creation (oops!) they’d never get through a secondary school English exam.
“I could literally go on for hours and hours and hours.” Yes, and that’s exactly what I was afraid of when I read your first paragraph above in your 11.50 post. Allow me to correct some, at least, of your fundamental errors about Sacred Scripture and the Catholic Church.
The Bible is NOT contradictory. By your (lack of) rationale, all writers would have to make sure they chose a subject and stuck rigidly to it. We couldn’t have a character, e.g. who fell in love with a beautiful girl and then later killed her in a rage; we couldn’t have a materially poor character who hated rich people until she met her Prince Charming and went off to marry him and live in the picturesque castle on the hill. Heavens, you want to read the John Grisham courtroom novel I’m reading right now -I don’t know whether the main characters are goodies or baddies, there’s so much contradictory behaviour and unexpected connections that I don’t know whether I’m on foot or on horseback most of the time. Can’t wait to get to the end and see who’s really who and what’s really what.
So, please. Think, think, think, Agnophilo – and when you’ve done that, think again. The Bible is not “contradictory” at all; it is revealing the nature of God to us in various contexts and for different purposes. It’s not on the same level as the magazines in your local doctor’s/dentist’s waiting room.
And no, I’m not saying that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and means to salvation given to the world by God just because I was baptised into it. When I was around thirteen or fourteen years of age and heard that dogma (outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation) taught by my religion teacher, I decided that if that were true, there is nothing more important than my Catholic Faith. But if it were not true of Catholicism – just looking at the timeline from the first century and seeing where the schisms came – then it is not true of any other “church”. Nor would I be convinced by any other religion’s “Holy Book” – I’m a qualified RE teacher and have had a look at the non-Christian “Holy Books” . So, thanks for the thought, but no thanks.
Please do not assume that we are all unthinking and brainless just because we don’t believe that the world began with a big bang (is that to be taken “literally” by the way?) and that our great, great, great etc grandparents were monkeys. Puleeeese!
“Agnophilo, There are few things so painful as witnessing a non-believer/atheist/agnostic/evolutionist trying to show how much they know about the Bible. What they ACTUALLY show, however, is how little they know about the Bible. If they showed such ignorance about any other book in creation (oops!) they’d never get through a secondary school English exam.”
For someone who is never, ever allowed to insult someone personally you do a good job of being condescending in every response (and without backing it up by the way, you’ve yet to show one thing I stated that was incorrect).
“I could literally go on for hours and hours and hours.” Yes, and that’s exactly what I was afraid of when I read your first paragraph above in your 11.50 post.”
Uh uh. Thanks for blowing off what I said.
“The Bible is NOT contradictory. By your (lack of) rationale, Sugar Plum, all writers would have to make sure they chose a subject and stuck strictly to it. We couldn’t have a character who fell in love with a beautiful girl and then killed her in a rage; we couldn’t have a materially poor character who hated rich people until she met her Prince Charming and went off to marry him and live in the picturesque castle on the hill. Heavens, you want to read the John Grisham novel I’m reading right now – I don’t know whether the main characters a goodies or baddies, there’s so much contradictory behaviour and unexpected connections that I don’t know whether I’m on foot or on horseback most of the time. Can’t wait to get to the end and see who’s really who and what’s really what.”
That is a non-sequiter. People are inconsistent, people change and people contradict themselves. So do fictional characters (including yahweh). There is nothing at all inconsistent or illogical about this view. Your claim that the bible never contradicts itself and god is consistent has nothing to do with other fictional books, whose contradictory nature is not in question.
“So, please. Think, think, think, Agnophilo – and when you’ve done that, think again.”
There you go being snotty again.
“And no, I’m not saying that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and means to salvation given to the world by God just because I was baptised into it.”
I never said that, the point I was making is that you were viewing the world in an ethnocentric way and scoffing at others for doing the same. I was trying to show you a bird’s eye view if you will of what you were doing.
“When I was fourteen years of age and heard that dogma taught by my religion teacher, I decided that if that were true, there was nothing more important than my Catholic Faith.”
I don’t know how anyone at the age of 14 could know what the most important thing in the world was.
“But if it were not true of Catholicism – just looking at the timeline from the first century and seeing where the schisms came, then it was not true of any other “church”.
Earlier doesn’t mean truer.
“Nor would I be convinced by any other religion’s “Holy Book” – I’m a qualified RE teacher and have had a look at the non-Christian “Holy Books” .
If you were indoctrinated into it you would be. Or do you think you are immune to indoctrination and cultural bias? 1 in 11 children ever believe anything other than the religion they are taught growing up, that is true whether that religion is catholicism or mormonism or islam or hinduism or anything else. You would most likely be muslim if you were raised in a muslim country. Might your having been raised catholic have biased you toward catholicism in a similar way? Even assuming it’s true, you can still be irrationally biased toward it, the same way if islam were true people would still be biased toward it.
“So, please do not assume that we are all unthinking and brainless just because we don’t believe that the world began with a big bang (is that to be taken “literally” by the way?)”
Figuratively. And the big bang theory (proposed by a catholic priest who taught physics at a catholic university by the way) has nothing to do with the origin of the world, it explains the expansion and cooling of the universe..
“and that our great, great, great etc grandparents were monkeys. Puleeeese!”
They weren’t monkeys or any other modern species. Monkeys aren’t even in the great ape family. And yes your ancestors were apes because guess what, you’re an ape and so are your parents. Ape does not refer to any one species, it simply means primate and refers to a collective group of species which includes humans. We are primates to this day the same way we are mammals to this day. If we had feathers we’d be birds, if we had scales and swam in the ocean we’d be fish but we’re not – we’re primates. Which by the way are also animals, as opposed to say plants or bacteria.
Agnophilo,
It is quite clear that my writing style is annoying you so, since I do not wish to risk offending you further, I am going with withdraw from trying to respond to your points and leave it to others with a more conventional writing style (and who are better equipped anyway – I’m no science expert) to do so.
I do not seem to be making my meaning clear, anyway. You entirely misunderstood my analogy with other literature which was aimed at highlighting the fact that the Bible is not “contradictory” : revealing different and complementary aspects of God is not to “contradict”. We all can laugh and we all can cry. That doesn’t mean we’re mixed up, contradictory people. I’ve not made that clear enough in my previous post, for which I apologise.
Anyway, there is one other point which you addressed to me in another comment which I’ll answer here, because I don’t have time to search for it, before keeping my promise to leave the others to respond to your future comments.
You replied to my suggestion that you look at the Catholic website Daylights Origin by noting that there is a claim on that website that there is no evidence for evolution. I agree with that. There IS no evidence for the theory of evolution. I’m going to try one more analogy – if it doesn’t work (and no analogy is perfect) then so be it…
If you were on a jury in a murder trial and the prosecution told you that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, the accused may have had a motive, possibly had the murder weapon, could have been present at the scene of the crime, doesn’t have a 100% alibi for the time of the murder but then neither did any other suspect – how would you vote? To acquit, surely?
I’m no scientist but those who range from being better informed than I through to experts in the subject tell me there isn’t a shred of evidence for the theory of evolution. That has been my own belief all along. One either “believes” in evolution or one doesn’t. I don’t.
“Agnophilo, It is quite clear that my writing style is annoying you so, since I do not wish to risk offending you further, I am going with withdraw from trying to respond to your points and leave it to others with a more conventional writing style (and who are better equipped anyway – I’m no science expert) to do so.”
This is funny way to start a long comment, saying you’re not going to comment anymore and that you’re no science expert, then making broad claims about science.
“I do not seem to be making my meaning clear, anyway. You entirely misunderstood my analogy with other literature which was aimed at highlighting the fact that the Bible is not “contradictory” : revealing different and complementary aspects of God is not to “contradict”.”
If telling us to set each other on fire and telling us to treat each other as we would want to be treated isn’t a contradiction then what in the world could possibly be a contradiction? The bible even gives different numerical descriptions that conflict with each other, different numbers of people and numbers of people who died in battles etc. How is one number the same as another number? That’s a neat trick.
“We all can laugh and we all can cry. That doesn’t mean we’re mixed up, contradictory people.”
First of all we are mixed up, contradictory people, but not because we have a capacity to feel more than one emotion. If I said that my morality is 100% consistent and eternal and never changes and then I said love each other and care for one another and be kind – then killed a million people and said ordered people to each other on fire, then said not to be cruel and mean and lets all just get along, would I be consistent or contradictory?
“I’ve not made that clear enough in my previous post, for which I apologise.”
You have faults, but that isn’t one of them. You were perfectly clear. This “I must just not be smart enough to explain/understand how true the bible is” thinking is just a way to rationalize. It is a lot like the psychology of abuse victims who blame themselves for the abuser’s behavior. You are taking the fault onto yourself and internalizing it because it’s safer than acknowledging it where it really lies.
“You replied to my suggestion that you look at the Catholic website Daylights Origin by noting that there is a claim on that website that there is no evidence for evolution. I agree with that. There IS no evidence for the theory of evolution. I’m going to try one more analogy – if it doesn’t work (and no analogy is perfect) then so be it…”
Even in darwin’s day before the discovery of DNA and most of the fossil record there was a great deal of evidence for evolution and many of the biological principles of natural selection were accepted before darwin even opened his mouth. To say that there isn’t a shred of evidence is either grossly ignorant or insane. I don’t say that to score points, it just honestly is. That life evolves and has been doing so for many millions of years is virtually universally accepted even by christian biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, zoologists etc. What are they all insane? Or have atheist scientists threatened their children to force them to keep quiet? There are some evangelicals who actually believe those kinds of conspiracy theories. Or are people with advanced degrees in scientific fields simply less knowledgeable than you?
“If you were on a jury in a murder trial and the prosecution told you that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, the accused may have had a motive, possibly had the murder weapon, could have been present at the scene of the crime, doesn’t have a 100% alibi for the time of the murder but then neither did any other suspect – how would you vote? To acquit, surely?”
And what if you were on trial and the prosecution had no eye witnesses but had fingerprints, DNA, blood spatter analysis, hair and fiber evidence etc, etc, etc all pointing to one person as guilty? If there were no evidence for evolution yes it would be absurd to accept it – but that is a fundamentalist fantasy, not the world we live in.
“I’m no scientist but those who range from being better informed than I through to experts in the subject tell me there isn’t a shred of evidence for the theory of evolution.”
Go to your local university and ask the biology professor if there isn’t a shred of evidence for evolution. Call up ten universities and ask their genetics, biology, geology, zoology and paleontology professors if there isn’t a shred of evidence for evolution. Or better yet, google “evidence for evolution”. You will find two kinds of websites – ones listing and describing and talking about the vast amounts of evidence supporting the theory, and the other kind of website is fundamentalist religious websites claiming that evidence doesn’t exist or isn’t valid.
“That has been my own belief all along. One either “believes” in evolution or one doesn’t. I don’t.”
Science doesn’t require belief, just eyes.
This is a reply to Agnophilo 9.03pm post on 16 September – there is no reply button at his post.
Agnophilo,
If there is so much evidence for evolution, how come it’s still only a theory and not a fact?
I was sickened by the Daily Record’s coverage of this. Basically, they were stating that basic Christian teachings on morality and the creation of the world are so bizarre that children need to be protected from them.
The fact is: there is simply no good evidence for ‘molecules-to-man’ evolution, be it the theistic or atheistic variety. There is no known mechanism in any system by which information can increase through random causes. It’s like saying that if you scribble a shopping list down in English and and ask a Mandarin speaker (who cannot read English) to copy it and give the copy to another Mandarin and ask him to copy it and pass it on…that through the many copying errors the Encyclopaedia Britannica could emerge. It would be laughable if secularists hadn’t made a dogma out of it.
Further, there are no artefacts that come anywhere close to demonstrating that macro-evolution has occurred. Charles Darwin stated that if no transitional forms were found then that would falsify his theory. And Stephen Jay Gould spoke of the paucity of such forms as being a “trade secret” of palaeontology. But then there are truths that are only to be discussed among the high priests of Darwinism but are to be hidden from the masses who might take the lack of evidence as suggestive of the theory of evolution not being true.
Unfortunately, a great many of the young priests in Scotland belong to the Faith Movement which promotes theistic evolutionism among young Catholics. Ask the wrong question at one of their conferences and you can feel the chill surround you.
“I was sickened by the Daily Record’s coverage of this. Basically, they were stating that basic Christian teachings on morality and the creation of the world are so bizarre that children need to be protected from them.”
Augustine that is exactly what they are saying. When I saw this on the 6pm news tonight I was speechless. The very first parent they spoke to said she was a Catholic and her husband was a Protestant and they don’t impose this on their children, so why should the school?
What really gets me though is that nobody that I’ve heard of, teacher or head teacher, has been removed for teaching sex to primary kids, just that God created the world. It’s really crazy.
Also, it’s not so long ago that we were discussing a Catholic school where the head teacher had invited Stonewall gay rights group into teach the staff how the deal with homophobia/gay bullying. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if these groups were speaking to pupils as well and giving them literature. Anything goes except teaching basic Christian doctrines. It’s a real scandal.
I hope these East Kilbride head teachers were not demoted and were given a post of the same promotion level.
If gays are being bullied the school should do something about it just as if christians are being bullied the school should do something about it. In this case, as I said the materials they were giving students demonized non-christians which I think would be considered pretty bad no matter who was doing it or to what group. Imagine if I went into the school and handed out books saying that if the world were entirely christian you would be much more likely to be raped, would that go over well? Would you be appalled if I was asked to take my books and go away?
Nobody should be bullied. That is something the parents should be drumming into their children at home. It’s such an elementary thing, to be polite and helpful to others, not bullying anyone for any reason whatsoever, that it is incredible they have to run courses on it for teaching staff. Mad.
But there is no mistake about it, the “gay” groups are using alleged bullying of “gay pupils” to infiltrate their diabolical material and beliefs into schools.
Don’t kid yourself – that’s what they’re up to. I’m on to them….
What exactly are you calling diabolical? Telling people gay kids aren’t freaks or evil? How else should they stop bullying but try to stop kids from singling them out? Should we tell them the bible says gay men deserve to die instead?
Naughty, naughty, Agnophilo. Elementary Catholic teaching – we can never say another person is evil or “diabolical” – only actions, behaviours. And we must treat every human being with respect – from the womb to the tomb.
One sure way to stop alleged sexual bullying in schools is to stop ramming sexual information down the throats of children who should be left free to enjoy their childhood.
When they’re old enough to study morality, including sexual morality, then somebody needs to tell them that the Catholic Church almost alone now (used to be a universal belief) teaches that sexual intercourse is only legitimate between one man and one woman married to each other. Everything else comes from the devil – i.e. it is diabolical.
Comprenez vous the noo?
“Naughty, naughty, Agnophilo. Elementary Catholic teaching – we can never say another person is evil or “diabolical” – only actions, behaviours. And we must treat every human being with respect – from the womb to the tomb.”
Ironically in nine years of catholic elementary school (k-8) I was never taught this elementary catholic teaching.
It’s a good idea. In logic it is referred to as the ad hominem fallacy as you may already know.
“One sure way to stop alleged sexual bullying in schools is to stop ramming sexual information down the throats of children who should be left free to enjoy their childhood.”
The gay kids are bullied because of orientation, not sex. It’s not like 10 year olds are having orgies and the gay kid isn’t invited. Kids don’t need to learn about homosexuality or heterosexuality to have crushes on or be attracted to other classmates, or to freak out or ostracize the odd one out when this happens.
“When they’re old enough to study morality, including sexual morality, then somebody needs to tell them that the Catholic Church almost alone now (used to be a universal belief) teaches that sexual intercourse is only legitimate between one man and one woman married to each other. Everything else comes from the devil – i.e. it is diabolical.”
Setting aside that the bible has a lot more to say about sexual ethics which I doubt you would go along with, do you honestly believe every horny teenager is being controlled by the devil? Hormones and the sex center of the brain and endorphins have nothing to do with it? Are animals going through puberty being controlled by the devil too?
“Comprenez vous the noo?”
It wasn’t a matter of comprehension, I asked your opinion and what “diabolical” things you believed they were telling these kids (which you didn’t answer).
“Ironically in nine years of catholic elementary school (k-8) I was never taught this elementary catholic teaching.”
Well, you should have been. It’s about all they do teach these days under the modernist set up where “respecting” everyone is done to death day in and day out.
As for the rest – the children I know who are home-schooled never hear the word “gay”, knowing nothing about homosexuality (or any other kind of sexuality for that matter) and, guess what? They do not bully anyone. They are, I’m reliably informed, the most popular children in their neighbourhood, with invitations galore to play after the school day, go to parties etc.
“…do you honestly believe every … teenager is being controlled by the devil?”
It’s not the teenagers who are being controlled by the devil. It’s the sexperts who are obsessed with the subject and want to introduce young people to that side of life. I believe that, interestingly enough, this desire is one of the hallmarks of a paedophile. Reflect.
“I asked your opinion and what “diabolical” things you believed they were telling these kids (which you didn’t answer).”
Didn’t I? Well, shucks, sorry about that – it’s not easy to keep up with your comments, so forgive me if I don’t address every point every time. Life is, they say, very short.
So, what “diabolical things” are the sexperts telling the kids? Well, have you seen any of the material used in schools (including primary schools) these days? Have you checked out any of the material offered by Peter Tatchell & Co. for use in schools? There’s some pretty graphic stuff there which is not suitable for copying on a good old fashioned Catholic blog like this but check it out and see if you are happy for your small children to be given such material. Some of us on this blog wrote to our MPs not that long ago (maybe a year or so) attaching to our emails, examples of the homosexual leaflets going into schools. Please check it out. We’ve been there, done that, decided not to buy the T shirt, so no need to remind us – just educate yourself in this especially if you are a parent of young children.
“Well, you should have been. It’s about all they do teach these days under the modernist set up where “respecting” everyone is done to death day in and day out.”
Their strategy seemed to be not to teach much science or much scripture and hope the kids don’t ask too many questions.
“As for the rest – the children I know who are home-schooled never hear the word “gay”, knowing nothing about homosexuality (or any other kind of sexuality for that matter) and, guess what? They do not bully anyone. They are, I’m reliably informed, the most popular children in their neighbourhood, with invitations galore to play after the school day, go to parties etc.”
That is great for them but I am sure you could find anecdotal evidence in every direction, in support of virtually anything.
“It’s not the teenagers who are being controlled by the devil.”
You said premarital sex is from the devil, so in what sense is that true?
“It’s the sexperts who are obsessed with the subject and want to introduce young people to that side of life.”
Teenagers are generally horny regardless of whether they are exposed to this or that ideology.
“I believe that, interestingly enough, this desire is one of the hallmarks of a paedophile. Reflect.”
Obviously there are pedophiles and there are I am sure idiots who want to expose kids to ideas too advanced for them or that are age inappropriate, but in my experience when people try to introduce kids to the idea of homosexuality it is in age appropriate ways. I doubt “my two mommies” is about the logistics of lesbian sex. And if it is evil to expose children to the idea of someone having two moms or two dads is it evil to teach them a story where there is a mom and a dad? Is that sexualizing them? Again orientation and actual sex are two different things. We shouldn’t sexualize young kids but exposing them to the idea of two people loving each other or having a family doesn’t do that.
“Didn’t I? Well, shucks, sorry about that – it’s not easy to keep up with your comments, so forgive me if I don’t address every point every time. Life is, they say, very short.”
Again, being snotty.
“So, what “diabolical things” are the sexperts telling the kids? Well, have you seen any of the material used in schools (including primary schools) these days? Have you checked out any of the material offered by Peter Tatchell & Co. for use in schools? There’s some pretty graphic stuff there which is not suitable for copying on a good old fashioned Catholic blog like this but check it out and see if you are happy for your small children to be given such material.”
Could you at least post a link to what you are talking about?
“Some of us on this blog wrote to our MPs”
MP?
“not that long ago (maybe a year or so) attaching to our emails, examples of the homosexual leaflets going into schools. Please check it out.”
Link?
“We’ve been there, done that, decided not to buy the T shirt, so no need to remind us – just educate yourself in this especially if you are a parent of young children.”
Would help if I had some inkling what you were talking about.
Agnophilo,
If you wish me to reply to your posts, you will, I’m afraid, have to live with my “snottiness” – I tend to write as I would speak, so, although my “tone and style” is not universally popular, it’s all I got… If you’d rather receive responses only from the more formal among us, let me know. I can live with that. ~After all, I’m not taking offence at you saying you don’t have an inkling what I’m talking about – am I? I’m not saying, “who needs links to such material these days when it’s common knowledge that “gay” materials are highly explicit and that there have been umpteen news reports about them causing concern in schools?” See link below.
“MP” means “Member of Parliament” – the politicians who represent the people (that sense of humour again) in the House of Commons in Westminster (MSP = Member of the Scottish Parliament).
A lot of us wrote to our MPs sending them copies of the disgraceful homosex brochures being used in schools. I did take a quick look on the “gay” websites in order to post links, and did so again just now in case I missed something the first time, but the graphic school resources appear to have been removed from the websites where, if my memory is correct, they were originally published. However, below is an article and video clip from Canada. The graphic stuff he shows is exactly the same as that which was on the school brochures here – that and much more. The reason we contacted our MPs was because the material was funded by the Government. In due course, we were able to quote responses from our MPs, most of whom were as shocked as the rest of us. Unfortunately, all of this was recorded on our previous blog which was hacked.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/06/tdsb-teacher-posts-explicit-sex-ed-brochures-in-grade-7-8-class
I’m sure it is still possible to unearth some of the graphic material on “gay” websites but since I need to be somewhere else in half an hour, I’m unable to take the time to research. Maybe you will find time to do so.
I’m sure if you look hard enough you can find sleaze or inappropriate behavior of any kind. However it does me no good to look for it because the question was not whether some gay person acted inappropriately, but what specific material you were talking about. You claimed that simply because people are gay they are bound to be sexualizing young students, which is right up there with saying that because someone is a priest they’re bound to be molesting kids or just because someone is an ethnic minority they are bound to be breaking the law. I asked you what specifically you were implying and you replied with a “those people” type of vague generalization to which I asked for specifics. So far all you’ve given me is an anecdotal example of one teacher in another country posting materials not printed for adults where he shouldn’t have posted them and getting immediately reprimanded.
“I was sickened by the Daily Record’s coverage of this. Basically, they were stating that basic Christian teachings on morality and the creation of the world are so bizarre that children need to be protected from them.”
They gave them a book demonizing non-christians as murderous (which is ironic, since the countries with the lowest homicide rates are among the most secular).
“The fact is: there is simply no good evidence for ‘molecules-to-man’ evolution, be it the theistic or atheistic variety.”
There is no such thing as atheistic evolution, I don’t even know what that would be. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life or the existence or non-existence of a god. As for “molecules to man” you are a man who is made of molecules, and you were once only one cell large. We can trace your lineage through the fossil record going back to single-celled organisms (which are simply organisms that stay single-celled). The claim that there is no evidence is simply one of ignorance.
“There is no known mechanism in any system by which information can increase through random causes. It’s like saying that if you scribble a shopping list down in English and and ask a Mandarin speaker (who cannot read English) to copy it and give the copy to another Mandarin and ask him to copy it and pass it on…that through the many copying errors the Encyclopaedia Britannica could emerge. It would be laughable if secularists hadn’t made a dogma out of it.”
Natural selection is not a random cause, it is not random that the fastest animals escape the predators and pass on the random genetic variations that made them faster at a higher rate than the ones whose variations made them slower. Google “evolution experiment” for tons of examples of organisms acquiring new traits, genes and abilities in the lab. Your criticism of evolution is akin to arguing that cooks are lying when they claim food is cooked on a stove because simply putting ingredients in a pot does not magically produce edible food. You left out the part about stirring, applying heat and so on. Similarly you ignore or simply don’t know about natural selection, the actual mechanism darwin proposed which actually makes the whole thing work.
Don’t think random variations and selection can produce complex design? Google “evolution simulator” for free programs that simulate exactly that. Here’s a good one.
http://boxcar2d.com/
You can watch a 2d car “evolve” by random variation, reproduction, recombination and natural selection. Ie the best random variations are the only ones passed from one virtual generation to the next. You can even copy/paste the virtual genome (a string of numbers) to save your virtual organism.
Watch a few dozen generations and see it evolve. Similar programs are used to actually design things like more stable airplane wings or stronger bridges.
“Further, there are no artefacts that come anywhere close to demonstrating that macro-evolution has occurred.”
Macro evolution is evolution above the species level, which is observed in the lab and in nature. The wikipedia page for speciation (the splitting of one species into two) lists four known types of speciation and gives examples of each being observed. Ring species (which creationist websites never, ever comment on) are another example of macro-evolution in progress. If by macro-evolution you mean a cat turning into a dog or something, that isn’t how evolution works.
“Charles Darwin stated that if no transitional forms were found then that would falsify his theory.”
Transitional forms he predicted must exist were found in his lifetime.
“And Stephen Jay Gould spoke of the paucity of such forms as being a “trade secret” of palaeontology.”
Actually this is an example of quote-mining (taking quotes out of context to distort their meaning). In the full quote it is clear that he was not attacking evolution at all or suggesting the non-existence of evolution, but rather was advocating the idea of punctuated equilibrium, ie sudden, rapid evolution. To twist those statements and pretend he was saying evolution is unfounded is very dishonest and you should be wary of the websites that do this.
“But then there are truths that are only to be discussed among the high priests of Darwinism but are to be hidden from the masses who might take the lack of evidence as suggestive of the theory of evolution not being true.”
This is a fantasy, science is transparent (your “proof” of this secrecy is public statements freely given in published interviews). Anyone can subscribe to any academic journal. Science deals with the readily observable, the only areas where there can be said to be “high priests” are areas like quantum mechanics which require things like electron microscopes or particle accelerators which few have access to, and even then there is no reason to think they’re keeping secrets from us, especially since most of us wouldn’t understand those secrets if they printed them on the front page of every newspaper.
“Unfortunately, a great many of the young priests in Scotland belong to the Faith Movement which promotes theistic evolutionism among young Catholics. Ask the wrong question at one of their conferences and you can feel the chill surround you.”
I’m genuinely sorry you are made to feel ostracized. Imagine how atheists are made to feel in places like america.
You talk about natural selection as if that is what is being denied. But no-one is denying that there exists such a process. But natural selection leads to a decrease in useful genetic information i.e. microevolution not to an increase i.e. macroevolution. The two processes are entirely different.
Actually you are denying that natural selection (as biologists and geneticists understand it) exists. The claim that it only leads to degredation and removal of genetic information is evangelical propaganda that has no basis in science, which is why you only find it on religious websites being promoted by ideologues. As I said, gene duplication mutations add new DNA and subsequent mutations modify that additional DNA to produce “information”. And the fossil record shows that this sort of thing has been going on for a very long time, since we see the gradual emergence of new species and new traits. You don’t have to go far back in the geological column before you stop seeing humans – go further back and you stop seeing primates – further back and eventually there are no mammals, then no reptiles, amphibians, fish etc, and eventually no multi-cellular life. Then eventually no life at all.
Nice post!
Thank you, ICreateBlogs – and welcome!
Now, I’m going to be slightly controversial here. Whilst i do have a certain sympathy with some of the limited material I’ve seen from this group, I think the Head Teacher was foolish to allow this group into the school and hand out this literature.
First of all, this was a non-denominational school. The pupils and a large percentage of the parents, have probably had a very limited Christian formation. To use anti-evolution and anti-homosexual literature on those who probably are completely indifferent to the notion of God is probably not the ideal starting point.
Secondly, from what I’ve seen, the material handed out is probably not very well matched to the age and stage of primary school children. Again, I think when wade in with anti-evolution material is of limited value when the majority do not even believe in God. I don’t think it’s a good starting point. Saint Paul’s “milk, not meat” spring to mind.
I should say that I also agree with all of the other posts too. It’s preposterous that a teacher can be disciplined for giving out this material, but ENCOURAGED to promote sex education.
Teaching facts and preaching dogma are not the same thing. And while I’m sure you think the world is going to hell in a handbasket because evil secular society is blah blah blah teen pregnancy and STDs (not to mention the ensuing abortions that occur) are a real problem that everybody cares about whether they’re christian or not. Sex ed and making birth control available for those teens who will have sex regardless of what you teach them (which is most of them) significantly reduces all of these things. If you have a better idea I’d be glad to hear it.
Well Professor Green of the Harvard school of public health disagrees. Handing out birth control makes these problems worse.
If everyone abided by Catholic moral teaching there would be no STDs.
In africa. In the west we have condoms and birth control and no AIDS epidemic. As for everyone being moral, yes, if we lived in a perfect world everything would be great. That is a fantasy, not a solution. The reality is teenagers have lots of hormones, poor judgement and brains that aren’t done developing yet, expecting them to be perfect (let alone by your standard of perfection) is a tad bit unrealistic. Not to mention it doesn’t work.
I’m pretty sure sitting back and wishing people would all be monogamous has been tried in africa too.
So you know better than Professor Green? HIV levels rose in Scotland last year. Don’t think the “safe sex” message is working!
By the way, yes, we should be trying to be perfect.
“So you know better than Professor Green?”
No, you are simply misrepresenting his findings which by the way mark that condoms are effective in other regions.
“HIV levels rose in Scotland last year. Don’t think the “safe sex” message is working!”
You think there would be less STDs without condoms? Every study ever performed has to my knowledge shown that sex ed and birth control lower STD transmission and pregnancy rates and abstinence-only doesn’t. Find a way to actually get teenagers to abstain from sex and you’ve got yourself a plan. Until then as I said it’s a pipe dream.
“By the way, yes, we should be trying to be perfect.”
I agree, but it isn’t a realistic plan of action. What you are suggesting is akin to abolishing the courts and tearing down the prisons and banking on people being moral and getting along well. If that would work it would be great, but it won’t. People and life are too complicated.
Have you ever studied moral theology? It is not permitted to commit an intrinsically evil act – even if that evil act will create a perceived “good”.
So pulling an ass out of a pit on the sabbath (or healing a blind man on the sabbath) is wrong? I don’t think that sort of strict theology stands up to much scrutiny.
Agnophilo,
Not the same thing at all. There’s nothing evil – intrinsic or otherwise – in “healing a blind man on the Sabbath” – you’re confusing the moral law with man-made laws of religious observance which, as Christ was teaching in the examples you cite, go against the spirit of the Sabbath law if adhered to with undue strictness. That’s entirely different from flouting the natural moral order in relation to our bodies, which are temples of the Holy Spirit and not a playground for all sorts of perversities. .
Really? The ten commandments are man-made? You are sounding more like an atheist all the time.
I think the catholic church formed in a dictatorship and so is itself a spiritual dictator. And it is having trouble making the transition from a spiritual dictatorship to a spiritual democracy as the world throws off it’s political and spiritual shackles.
Spiritual democracy? Hilarious!
But a spiritual dictatorship isn’t? I think a democracy, for all it’s flaws, is bound to be vastly less corrupt than a dictatorship.
Should america be a dictatorship? Would that be better?
Could you please describe a spiritual democracy?
A system where people are free to explore, discuss and disagree on the nature and meaning of scripture. I did not mean a system where truth is determined by majority vote, but rather where it is not determined by fiat.
Isn’t that Protestantism? Where you have thousands of individual groups and sects each believing in different things? Doesn’t really sound faithful to Our Lord’s wish that the Church “may be one” does it? In this “spiritual democracy” who would “have the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”? Who would “strengthen the brethren”? Who would “Feed the lambs”?
So, whilst you might think that sounds nice and fashionable and comfy, Where is the scriptural basis for such a set up?
I read about a poll that was taken in the newspaper years ago, they asked catholics ten questions about what they believe. They were all basic questions like is the devil a literal being or symbolic of evil, not obscure trivia – it turned out that only something like 7% of catholics gave answers that matched church doctrine. The idea that catholics agree amongst themselves more than protestants is a pipe dream. I mean right now every time the pope opens his mouth the vatican has to release a statement saying “um, he didn’t mean that!” He’s said we should accept gay people and atheists will go to heaven and all kinds of things. Even the pope doesn’t agree with catholic doctrine. And his predecessor was against evolution and pro-pedophilia, and the guy before that said evolution was “no longer a mere hypothesis” and was supported by a wealth of evidence.
People disagree when they’re allowed to disagree.
Congratulations. You understand the crisis in the Church perfectly. Top marks.
It’s only a crisis if you are arrogant enough to think you have all the answers. Or if you think you own other people and have the right to control them.
I think persuasion promotes a healthier society than coercion. To quote thomas jefferson:
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”
So maybe a spiritual democracy is not the worst idea in the world.
Protestantism is apparently a spiritual democracy….how’s that going?
Well we’re not setting people on fire anymore, slavery is abolished, there are fewer kings and more democracies in the world etc – all in all I think it’s going well. Granted in order to realize this it helps to study history and learn about what a nightmare the world was in the past.
Because the world is such a lovely, cosy place these days eh? Get a grip and a life!
Again, it is better than it was. Relative improvement is improvement. If it’s not good enough for you, kill yourself. Those are your options, do the best with what you have or suicide.
Your last comment tells me all I need to know about you.
That I don’t like it when people use cynicism as an argument?
Petrus,
There would be no police and courts either – why doesn’t the rest of blankety blank society see that?
Editor,
The financial crisis would be resolved immediately!
Petrus,
A key reason why so many people are indifferent to God is because evolutionary theory has made Him superfluous to requirements!
Irrespective of the details of the material (I have only seen the pictures on TV news) the fact that a head teacher or two can be publicly humiliated and removed from post for allowing the idea spread abroad that there might well be a God who created the world, while it is routine to invite all sorts of groups and individuals into schools to hand out literature (the sexperts spring to mind) is nothing short of disgraceful.
Your point about age-appropriate is understandable, but as a teacher yourself you will know that in these matters, “age” is often irrelevant. At the ripe young age of 3 years, she tells us in her journal, the Little Flower knew she wanted to spend her life loving God. In any event, nobody has said anything in the news about the material not being age-appropriate – it’s because the material is about God as Creator of the world that the evolution brigade are upset. Make no mistake about it – this is another attack on Christian doctrine. Aided and abetted by the useful idiots who accept, uncritically, the theory of evolution as if it were divinely revealed dogma.
Editor,
I agree with a large part of what you say. You will note that I didn’t just say “age” but rather “age and stage”. The vast majority of children in that school won’t be at an age or stage to understand the material properly.
However, we both agree on the fundamentals…..for a change! Haha.
Petrus,
“Editor, I agree with a large part of what you say…”
Always the wisest course, our Petrus. Always the wisest course.
Actually they passed out two books, one that attacked evolution and the other that painted non-christians as dangerous psychopaths.
Agnophilo,
Can you quote something from the book that “painted non-Christians as dangerous psychopaths”? They didn’t mention that on the news, so I’d be very interested to have a quote or few…
Thank you.
“The decision to hand out the books – one of which warns pupils they risk being murdered in a world without God – was staunchly defended by MacKenzie.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/school-bosses-kick-out-extremist-2257795
This kind of hate mongering of painting non-believers as being devoid of conscience is extremely common among creationists, for example this billboard from answers in genesis:
http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/06/answers%20in%20genesis_88485_0.jpg
Christian evangelists also promoted a book called “the pink swastika” which listed (mostly closeted) gay members of the third reich and gave misleading statistics claiming that virtually all pedophiles are gay to paint homosexuals as evil – it resulted in legislation being proposed in uganda to make homosexuality punishable by death.
To call some of the attitudes portrayed by creationism extremist, hateful, or harmful is not entirely unwarranted. They did not, it would appear, get kicked out simply for disagreeing with evolution or suggesting there was a god.
Isn’t the above then,living proof that the schools should have used the Catholic “creation” resource, Daylights. Check it out here…
The website claims that there is absolutely no evidence for evolution in any field and that scientists (who are mostly christian in the US) only accept evolution out of fear of god.
That is so wrong on so many levels.
What an absolute disgrace, the secretary of education should consider his position; we’ll have Westboro Baptists infiltrating schools next.
Constantine,
As long as they can keep the SSPX out of the Catholic schools, nothing to worry about…
I’ve just entered this blog, and I’ve read the report from the Scotsman. I’d like to say that I find it very alarming that creationism is viewed as a threat by anybody. It seems that so long as a teacher sticks dogmatically to evolution, then they are considered ok. But anyone with a mind of their own, and tries to promote creationism is taken to task by the authorities. It is a real shame, and as a Catholic, I’m increasingly aware that evolution has little to do with real science, and more to do with an ideal. I’d encourage every Christian to come to the fullness of the Catholic faith. Why not start here at http://www.faithfulanswers.com
All scientists say that mankind as is shares a common ancestor (Adam-which means ‘Earth man’ and Eve)-from a particular part of the world. Theological experts believe that the region described in the Genesis account is an area encompassing parts of Ethiopia and the Middle East. Science says this. God created Eve out of Adam’s rib. Not only does this agree with science which says that all people share common genetic material, but it also affirms man and women ‘becoming one flesh’. Evolution is a falsification used to reduce the scope of the providence of God. I have no problem with evolution however directed by a Creator. How an Nature exist as a independent force and plan, create and destroy thousands of species without a governing force? The Bible is the most accurate book ever written.
Modern genetics doesn’t suggest that humanity started out with one man and one woman and that was it and it was a few thousand years ago. Everyone can be traced back to one man and one woman because everyone has parents, and everyone’s family trees coincide at some point – but at that point there was already a great deal of biodiversity and there would’ve been many people alive, not just two. It is virtually impossible for any species to survive with fewer than several thousand members, once a population size gets below a few thousand they almost invariably wind down to extinction. Also just as two people with brown hair had to have had a common ancestor with the brown hair gene and two people with different color hair had to have two people with the basic hair gene (this is how we prove we are all related) two species with hair must also be related. Or two species with lungs or teeth or any other characteristic. It goes way beyond adam and eve. But what use would it be to tell people in the bronze age these concepts, it would be like telling them quantum mechanics, they would not comprehend it. It’s hard enough for modern humans to understand these concepts. So maybe god did like we do with young children too immature to understand sex – tell them a dumbed down version that satisfies their curiosity without confusing or frightening them, ie “mommy gives daddy a special hug and nine months later…”
“Also just as two people with brown hair had to have had a common ancestor with the brown hair gene and two people with different color hair had to have two people with the basic hair gene ”
Well, in my family we have children with blonde hair, born of two parents with black/brown hair. No (natural!) blondes at all in our family.
Another case of “there goes that theory”!
I was trying to explain the concept simply without going into dominant and recessive genes, epigenetics etc. Are you saying now that you don’t think all humans are related?
I forgot to add, I don’t listen to JP2 about evolution. I can scarcely look at his picture after he kissed Satan’s handbook, AKA the Koran. Papal Infallibility has only been invoked once in 1950 for the Assumption of Our Lady, and even then the Pope can only speak about faith and morals from the Chair. He can’t put himself above the Bible.
Amongst all the talk of biology and geology, discussions on the myth of evolution can very easily miss an extremely important point, a point which hopefully might awaken parents to the grave risks involved in letting their children be exposed to evolutionist indoctrination.
The myth that all life came by chance from one cell, which in turn came from non-living matter, is a speculative, dis- credited hypothesis, a philosophical naturalism wrapped in pseudo-science. I’m sure there is no shortage of dis-credited hypotheses doing the rounds, so what is so dangerous about evolutionism, and what makes its fundamentalist adherents so fanatical.
Evolutionism allows men to profess, without appearing mad, that things make themselves. It, so they think, confirms them in their rejection of the ex nihilo creation of life and matter by God. Submission of will to belief in a Creator and Divine Lawgiver is no longer required of a believing evolutionist.
The only explanation for the endless propagation of this unscientific theory, is that evolution is actually an unscientific means of war against against Christ, His Church and Christian civilization.
Why is evolutionist naturalism kept alive with such fanaticism, and regardless of all reasonable argument? Well, think of the highest towers in the disbelieving, revolting against God, City of Man that stretches as far as the eye can see. Think how the evils of Modernism. Marxism, Secular Humanism, and Eugenics topple without the foundation of evolutionism to underpin them.
Biologist, Julian Huxley, shows how the dogma of evolution imposes itself as the foundation of the modern relativist religion:
“In the evolutionist way of thinking, there is no place for supernatural (spiritual) beings capable of affecting the course of human events, nor there is necessity of them. Earth was not created. It was formed by evolution. The human body, the mind, the soul, and everything that was produced, including laws, moral, religions, gods, etc., are entirely result of evolution, by means of the natural selection”. (Cfr. HUXLEY, J. Evolution after Darwin, p. 246)
Evolutionism is one of the “dogmas” of the modern atheistic mind.
Applied to theology and philosophy, belief in Evolutionism can be pointed as one of the causes of the triumphant relativism in our days. The logical outcome is the rejection of Absolute Truth, and with that, dogma and morality. Evolutionism is not biological science, but a naturalistic dogma of relativist metaphysics. So relativism then becomes an absolute principle!
Paul Lemoine, President of the Geological Society of France and Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, wrote:
“Evolution is a sort of dogma in which its clergymen no longer believe, although they uphold it to the people: it is necessary to have courage to say this so that the men of the future generation guide their researches in a different way” (Encyclopédie Française, Tome V, ps. 5-82-3, 5-82-8)
L. Harrison Matthews, evolutionist geologist confesses:
“The fact of Evolution being the backbone of Biology and that Biology is therefore in the particular position of a science founded upon a not-confirmed theory – is it then science or faith? Believing in Evolution is, thus, the exact parallel of believing in a special creation – both are concepts that believers take as true, but neither one nor the other was capable, so far, of proving anything” (L. H. Matthews, Introduction for the “Origin of Species”, of Charles Darwin, Dent and Sons, London, 1.971, p. XI, apud Duane T. Gish, op. cit. p. 15).
Richard Dawkins, close minded evolutionist scientist, informs us that Darwin makes it possible to man to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” ( Darwin’s Black Box, M. Behe, op. cit. p. 252).
Another known evolutionist, Richard Lewontin, confessed:
“We stayed in the side of science, despite the patent absurdity of some of its constructions, despite its failure to accomplish many of its extravagant promises in relation to health and life, despite the tolerance of scientific community in favour of certainly non-proved theories, because we have a previous compromise, a compromise with Materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science, in some way, compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenon of the world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our previous adhesion to Materialist conception of universe to create a display of investigation and a set of concepts that produce Materialist explanations, it does not matter how contradictory, how deceiving and how mythological they are to the non-initiated. Beyond that, to us, the Materialism is absolute; we cannot permit that the ‘Divine Foot’ gets in by our door” (New York Reviews of Books, 1987).
That evolutionism has been moulded by factors other than Biology is confirmed by the following observation. I trust that evolutionists will not quibble with source.
“Reading the detailed report of Schweber of the moments that preceded the formulation of the natural selection theory by Darwin, I was particularly touched by the absence of decisive influences from its own field, Biology. The immediate precursors were a social scientist [Comte], an economist [Adam Smith] and a statistician [Adolph Quetelet]” (S. Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p.55).
And so what, someone will say, protesting apathy towards matters theological and philosophical. Maybe the following will disturb their mental lethargy.
If the theory of Darwinist evolution had its origin in Darwin’s philosophical and economical readings, it provided a great vehicle for the propagation of Marxist materialism. In effect, “Marx was a great admirer of Darwin” (Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p.57).
“When the ”Origin of Species” showed up, Marx and Engels, the apostles of the world as a flow, saluted it with great joy. In 1860, Marx wrote to Engels: “Although developed in crude English style, this is the book that contains the basis of our perceptions in Natural History” (Howard E. Gruber, Darwin on Man, The University Chicago Press1981, p.71).
Marx wrote:
“It is amazing how Darwin recognizes, between animals and plants, his English society, with the division of work, the competition, the openness to new markets, the “invention” and the Malthusian “fight for survive”. It is the bellum omnium contra omnes (the war of all against all) of Hobbes” (The Panda’s Thumb, Jay Gould, p.56-57).
The closed ties between Evolutionism and Marxism is proved by the witness of Bishop O’Gara, Bishop of Yuanling, in China. According to the testimony of this Prelate, when the Communist Liberation Army of Mao Tsé Tung entered in a town, all the population was forced to participate in a course of propaganda and indoctrination, and, the first lesson was not about the doctrine of Karl Marx, but about Evolutionism, trying to convince the people that man came from the monkey. ( Patrick Troadec, L’Évolutionisme, French apostile, p. 2).
I don’t think there is any need to spell out the attraction that evolutionist inspired racial theories held for the motorised Attila operating out of Berlin between 1933 and 1945.
Can I suggest that when it comes to teaching and discussing evolution in schools, parents become aware of the grave dangers, in pretty quick order.
Leo,
Thanks for that fantastic post. I’m not surprised Agnophile has given it a wide berth!
In the Bible we are commanded to rise above our natural and brutish state, which we assumed after our ancestors sinned, to love others, to allow the Spirit to flow through us, as personified by the Good Samaritan or the Sheep and Goats. However, the mission of Science is to reduce back into this natural state, with the ‘survival of the fittest’ as the order of the day, as personified in eugenics and the holocaust.
Catholicism gave us Mother Teresa, St Jeanne Jugan, St Damien De Veuster and St Josemaria Escriva and their example of love, whereas science gave us Eugen Fischer, Francis Galton and Adolf Hitler and their examples of hate.
Nothing happens by accident. Why didn’t chimps ‘evolve’ to invent peniccilin or the aeroplane? They didn’t because we were chosen. Everything we believe is written on paper, the biologists don’t freely give out their research.
Agnophilo
You are mistaken by Edward C. Green and his scientific research. Look at this:
‘Green responded with a March 29, 2009 editorial in The Washington Post (“The Pope May Be Right”).[10] In this editorial he argued that empirical data supported the Pope, and that condoms have not worked as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. Green argued that the tendency of people in steady relationships to not use condoms, and the “risk compensation” phenomenon (“if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk”), may account for the failure of condoms to reduce HIV infections in Africa. (Articles in the prestigious medical journals British Medical Journal and The Lancet, by Cassell et al. (2006)[11] and Richens et al. (2000)[12] have discussed the potential for condom use to lead to risk compensation or behavioural disinhibition.) Green concludes, “So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up… sexual networks — or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones.”
Green also gave an extended interview with the BBC Northern Ireland on March 29, 2009 to explain his response to the Pope’s statement.[13] In this interview, he stated that while there was no proof of a causal connection between condom usage and a decrease or increase in HIV prevalence at the population level, some evidence supported an association between condom distribution and riskier sexual behaviour. He cited a study published in the journal JAIDS which “followed two groups of young people in Uganda, and the group that had the intensive condom promotion. actually were found to have a greater number of sex partners.[14] So that cancels out the risk reduction that the technology of condoms ought to provide.”
In San Francisco the gay population has a rate of AIDS infection of 50%, scheduled to rise to 50% of the national gay population. ‘What shall you sow, that shall you also reap’. AIDS infection is skyrocketing in the West. If you’d look at the facts, infection rates are decreasing in Africa, notably in Kenya and South Africa.
“The Pope May Be Right”
The article was originally called “The Pope was right” but then it was changed, likely to appease the anti-religious hordes who feared being shaken out of their wilful self-delusion.
The BBC also carried an article, on condoms-HIV, called “The Pope was right” However, tellingly, they relegated it to one of their blog items, not an item on their main news site.
That condoms are a failure at controlling HIV / STDs is beyond dispute. Only the worst kind of ideologue would continue to dispute this – and many do, usually homosexuals or those from the Guardian newspaper school of nonsense.
The Catholic teaching on this topics is fully borne out by empirical data, as experts have acknowledged.
The US Government Centre for Disease Control recently forecast that >50% of American homosexual men will have HIV in 2-3 decades. So much for condoms then, huh? American shows the way for all the developed world, usually a few years ahead of the rest.
I expect that, during my own lifetime, the majority (if not all) homosexual men will have HIV. This is why outlets like the Guardian have already started to carry articles demanding that attitudes to HIV “must change”.
They know condoms are not going to stop the homosexual-driven proliferation of HIV and so they simply want to pretend that HIV is not a problem any more, not a serious condition.
I also fully expect that, within my lfietime, certain people will start saying it is “bigoted” to regard HIV as being a serious disease or concerning topic.
You act like gay people are going to give you AIDs. Unless you’re gay you need to turn that fear and anger into concern.
Why is giving facts about HIV and gays “fear and anger”?
I am convinced that the fear and anger is on the other side.
Referring to it as the “homosexual-driven proliferation of HIV” made it sound like he was parroting the very common view that homosexuals are a threat to everyone else. I could be wrong, but that’s what I took him to mean. And what is the other side? The other side of this conversation or gay people or what?
Hi Agnophilo,
There is no “fear and anger” from me, only concern. Concern not only for the lives of those who contract HIV, but also for public health in general. After all, its my taxes which are used to clean up the mess of irresponsible sexual behaviour.
On the other hand, what is know as the “gay community” does not like to mention this topic at all, let alone demonstrate concern over it.
It is not absurd that, whilst being gradually consumed by incurable disease, this group of people identifies the nonsense of “gay marriage” as being their chief priority and concern.
It is pure escapism and it would be laughable, were it not so tragic.
And what better indicator of the negative health outcomes of homosexuality, that alrerady we can see on the horizone a point in time when most men who indulge in homosexuality will require daily medication just to stay alive.
As usual, the Catholic Church is shown to be right and the activists who talk of “bigotry” are shown to be reckless via encouraging deeply unhealthy misuses of the human body as being “normal”.
“Hi Agnophilo, There is no “fear and anger” from me, only concern. Concern not only for the lives of those who contract HIV, but also for public health in general. After all, its my taxes which are used to clean up the mess of irresponsible sexual behaviour.”
The only concern I detect in what you say is for yourself. And only contempt for the people you claim to have so much concern for.
“On the other hand, what is know as the “gay community” does not like to mention this topic at all, let alone demonstrate concern over it.”
Maybe it’s because the people who make up the “gay community” grew up being ostracized, feared and harassed by being equated with the disease. A gay person wouldn’t want to be talking about HIV all the time for much the same reason a jewish banker wouldn’t want his background to be brought up a lot. People do not embrace negative stereotypes.
“It is not absurd that, whilst being gradually consumed by incurable disease, this group of people identifies the nonsense of “gay marriage” as being their chief priority and concern. It is pure escapism and it would be laughable, were it not so tragic.”
Yeah because nothing promotes STDs like long term, monogamous relationships.
And it is breathtaking how little empathy white american christians have for minorities to think it’s absurd to want the same rights as everybody else. If christians were not allowed to get married or adopt their spouse’s child when the die or inherit their partner’s possessions, had to pay higher taxes, couldn’t get survivor benefits, could be barred from seeing their loved ones on their death bed and literally over a thousand other things they would see that as absurd to fight for? Give me a break.
“And what better indicator of the negative health outcomes of homosexuality, that alrerady we can see on the horizone a point in time when most men who indulge in homosexuality will require daily medication just to stay alive.”
As I already pointed out, gay women have the lowest risk of getting an STD, gay men have the highest and straight couples are in the middle. Homosexuality is not healthy or unhealthy, some forms of it carry fewer risks than being heterosexual.
“As usual, the Catholic Church is shown to be right”
Didn’t the pope just quit amidst an ongoing series of sex and pedophilia scandals? You talk about “absurd” and then praise as always being right an organization that has, as a matter of policy, supported nazis and pedophiles in living memory. Not to mention that as I said the study you cite doesn’t say what you claim it says.
“and the activists who talk of “bigotry” are shown to be reckless via encouraging deeply unhealthy misuses of the human body as being “normal”.”
Genius is abnormal. Whether something is normal or not is irrelevant. Whether it does harm or good is all that matters. Yes, unprotected sex does harm. You act like this is only true for gay people. I would argue that the emotional damage done by straight people whose philandering actually produces millions of unwanted babies every year who grow up without love or parents is a lot more evil than gay people whose actions for the most part only harm themselves.
You just said “you are mistaken” and then copied/pasted a bunch of stuff that in detail says what I just said. That condoms work at preventing STDs in othre countries, but aren’t working in africa. Do you think getting rid of condoms in america would lower the rate of STD transmission, teen pregnancy and abortion?
As for your anti-gay statistics, they are grossly inflated and cherry-picked. Gay women have the lowest rate of STD transmission and gay men have the highest – for anatomical and social reasons. But I doubt getting rid of condoms would make HIV go away.
“I doubt getting rid of condoms would make HIV go away”
Maybe not, but it would stop the illusion of “safe-sex”.
So would adequate education. Know anyone who’s opposed to that? Any group that holds a majority in the US?
Josephine,
Spot on. But will the so-called sex-educators give the facts about condoms in their so-called “safe sex” programmes? No way.
I remember, as a teacher on an in-service course, pointing out (during the Q & A session) some of the facts about condom failure to a doctor who had waxed lyrical about promoting them in schools. For the first time since he began his promotional talk the smile was wiped off his face, he hesitated for a few seconds and then replied: “But if we TELL them that, they won’t use them.”
Oh, very “safe-sex” – not. And how very dishonest.
“condoms work at preventing STDs in othre countries, but aren’t working in africa.”
This is wrong. Condoms dont work anywhere.
HIV is prevalent in Africa for a variety of reasons that do not apply in (eg) Europe.For example: widespread lawlessness and conflict (meaning widespread rapes), cultural promiscuity and indeed the promotion of promiscuity by NGOs who tout condoms, and other factors. This is why heterosexual people are affected by HIV in Africa.
Were it not for these factors, heterosexual Africans would not be widely affected by HIV. Heterosexual people in general are not widely affected by HIV – see the low figures elsewhere in the world.
HIV is largely a homosexual disease, indeed the disordered physical mechanics of homosexuality are a prolific spreader of the disease. Even the HIV rates of intravenous drug users pale to nothing in comparison with homosexual rates.
In the developed world, HIV is almost fully concentrated among homosexual men. Homosexual men in major Western cities – Sydney, San Francisco, London etc – now live with HIV infection rates worse than even the most badly affected African nations.
In the western world, condoms can be purchased at any shop, pharmacy, supermarket, petrol station or public toilet. They can be accessed via GPs, hospitals and health centres. They can be picked up – for free – from sexual health clinics. There are even schemes where homosexual men can receive condoms in the post – direct to their own door – for free.
And what is the result of this massive condom promotion? Record high HIV levels amongst homosexual men and official forecasts that the majority of homosexual men will have HIV in a few short years.
Condoms are a failure at controlling HIV and other STDs. Nowhere in the world have they ever been shown to successfully control or reduce HIV. That is not my own personal analysis, its what the statistics show and its what expert public health opinion says.
To disagree with this and continue to insist – in the face of all evidence – that condoms are effective is both dangerous and downright anti-scientific.
“Gay women have the lowest rate of STD transmission”
Lesbians, like gay men, face very specific and exaggerated health risks. One of the problems with analysing lesbian sexual health is actually being able to define who is a lesbian. Women who identify as lesbian commonly have sex with men – studies show that lesbians are more likely to have more than 50 male sexual partners, than is a heterosexual woman.
Studies show that bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and indeed prostitution are all more common among lesbians, than heterosexual women.
Homosexuality is strongly associated with sexual disease and physical injury. One of the major mistakes secular society makes in discussing sexual health is to include homosexual behaviour along with normal sexual behaviour. This is a mistake because what homosexuals do together is not sex – indeed, homosexuals are unable to have sex.
“Sex” (sexual intercourse) requires two partners to combine their sexual organs, in a fashion which is in keeping with the form and functions of the human body. Homosexuals cannot do this with their partners – it is physically impossible for them. Accordingly, homosexuals have to “make up” things to do with their partners, which usually take the form of a crude approximation of sex. (for example, sodomy, or a fist being used to penetrate an anus or vagina).
These crude approximations represent fundamental misuses of the human body and so it is no surprise that they are associated with such high rates of disease and injury.
I don’t know how you can say that condoms don’t reduce STD rates while saying that they’re low in the western world – what, does everyone in the US and europe have only one sexual partner in their lifetime? As if without condoms we would have the same STD rate.
And HIV is not a “homosexual disease” it’s a disease that infects anybody. Gay men are more susceptible to it for multiple reasons, everything from the anatomy and logistics of gay sex to men simply being more promiscuous than women. You act as though homosexuality somehow intrinsically spreads HIV based on a current statistical trend when gay men didn’t just pop into existence last year, if that trend were normal or constant HIV would be universal among gay people by now.
As for condoms being available not working birth control only works in conjunction with effective and accurate sex education, something christians (who are in the majority in the US and many european countries) tend to be violently opposed to. Under GWB the surgeon general when asked said he wasn’t sure if HIV could be transmitted through sweat or tears. A basic fact public school students are supposed to learn and the chief medical officer of the country didn’t know it. People make poor decisions based on bad information or no information at all.
As for all of your random statistics on homosexuals and lesbians as you said it depends on how you define lesbian (and someone who has sex with men is not a lesbian and by definition is irrelevant to the point I was making). And I am sure there are many correlations that go the other way where gay men and women are at lower risks for many social and medical hazards, but you aren’t going to seek out those statistics because they don’t promote your “everything about gay people is evil” worldview.
As for gay sex being a “crude approximation” of “normal” sex, you act like fisting or anal sex or oral sex are something gay people do. There are more straight women in the US taking it up the rear than there are gay men, just the ones who admit to it when polled outnumber gay men 6 to 1. So acting like it’s a “gay thing” is a bit ridiculous.
Gabriel Syme
In your list of sexual diseases you almost forgot mouth and throat cancer caused by oral sex. Also anal cancer, anal fissures, rectal cancer. They should set up remote sanatoriums for these people, in order to protect public health. Gay sex can never be considered a natural or healthy practise, no matter what the authorities tell us. The vagina produces a natural lubricant to enable intercourse, whereas gays have to use artificial lubrication to enable it. Now that’s ‘nature’. Schoolchildren and adolescents should never been shown how to use contraception or even have sex, they should be taught to be chaste, abstinent and innocent. Gay adoption is a concern of mine, for a reasons stated in an earlier post. I emailed Peter Tatchell about this and he said:
‘Isn’t the whole of mankind’s history based around the going against nature? Look at aeroplanes and washing machines’?
That sez it all.
It’s just an impression I have, with no empirical evidence, but maybe it is shared by others here. It strikes me that for many high profile evolutionist atheistic, agnostic, skeptic, humanist preachers who are granted seemingly endless media soapbox time, their empty, false creed is not enough for them.
They appear to hold an obsessive, intense antagonism towards the One, True Church, founded by our Divine Saviour. I’m thinking of course, of Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, and various cretinous loud mouths who pass for celebrities in this age of self-indulgent, self-absorbed, semi literates.
They can’t, it appears, defer for more than a couple of minutes some ill-informed rant about matters historical. Is it just ignorance, or a manifestation of some deep seated pathological self-hatred that afflicts modern, apostate, Western Man, or a complete refusal to admit that Western Civilisation was moulded, nurtured, developed, and defended by the Catholic Church? Talk about idiotically hacking away at the bough one is perched on. Reason and facts appear to be as water off a duck’s back in the case of many skeptic ignorami.
Maybe it’s simply because they feel safe in concentrating their fire on the Catholic Church, safe in the knowledge that they aren’t going to have their heads sawn off.
Maybe it’s because, like rebellious teenagers who spout nonsense to their parents, the modern apostate really is, deep down, actually bothered by the Natural Law, that is divinely written on man’s heart. On the question of Natural Law, here’s a link to a lengthy article, by the recently deceased Jean Madiran, posted on the very informative Apropos website.
http://www.apropos.org.uk/documents/NaturalLawMadiranApropos17.pdf
Rejection of belief in a Creator and Divine Lawgiver allows, erroneously of course, that considerations of moral restraint, and the devil, the flesh and the world, be parked in the darker recesses of the mind. As for the Four Last Things…
Just where does free will and a moral code come from in the world of the evolutionist? For the Catholics, the answer comes instantaneously. On what basis do evolutionists condemn along with Catholics, murder, theft, deceit, or slavery, or genocide, or experiments on humans? One notorious secularist in US academia has openly professed that, on utilitarian grounds, a fully grown bovine has more value than a new born infant. Hence we have so-called medical ethicists openly discussing the obscenity of “post birth abortion”.
Another obsession that appears to be widely prevalent among humanist, evolutionist, atheists is that of sexual morality or rather sexual license, and the throwing off of any moral restraint. “So long as no one is hurt…” Yeah, right. I don’t think there is any need to elaborate.
Western, apostate, so-called “enlightened” societies are now busily contracepting and aborting themselves into demographic oblivion. Grave offenses against God that they are, can any evolutionist square those actions with preservation and propagation of the species.
Are they now going to tell us that concupiscence is stronger than reason? Analyse that, Dawkins.
Leo
I agree 100% with what you say. The thing is evolutionists don’t believe in the dignity of human life, because according to them we are all subject to natural selection and the death and destruction that that entails.
‘safe in the knowledge that they aren’t going to have their heads sawn off’. If only the opposite were true. I’d love to stick the heads of Messrs. Hitchens and Dawkins on a pike. They will get their just punishment soon enough. Hitchens is being barbecued as we speak.
Catholic morals are universal, and must be spread around the world, peacefully or otherwise.
Catholic morals are universal, and must be spread around the world, peacefully or otherwise.
Peacefully or otherwise? Are you insinuating that if peaceful means are unavailable to us we should evangelise the world by violent and revolutionary means? I’m sorry. That’s not Christianity. Islam perhaps, but not Christianity.
And the thought of entertaining images of someone’s soul being “barbecued” in eternal hell fire is unsettling. Some of your comments on this blog make you seem unbalanced.
I have mentioned this in another post. Are you a troll?
Miles Immaculatae,
Thank you for your courteous but firm responses to some outrageous statements in Catholic Convert’s comments.
I’m swamped right now but –
be warned, Catholic Convert – when I’ve got time I’ll be doing a thorough inspection of your comments, so please think before you write something that a saint would not write. Me, for example. Can you imagine any of us great saints, as Miles puts it, “entertaining images of someone being barbecued” in eternal punishment? No way. So, please no more of this kind of thing, please and thank you.
I think the following link says an awful lot about the issue of education and homosexuality:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/A064_HIVStats.htm
“Classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily for such a long time by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” – Nobel prize-winner Sir Ernest Chain, co-discoverer of penicillin, 1970.
Repeated attempts to dress evolutionism up as science need to be treated with a lot of scepticism, particularly when in matters concerning origins, neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed.
Augustine has made probably the most important point here on the subject of evolution, namely that microevolution and macroevolution are totally different.
MICRO-evolution is a fact of science that concerns relatively minor changes that take place within a plant or animal form, but do not change the plant or animal into anything else. MACRO-evolution on the other hand is the unproven hypothesis that one species “evolves” over time into something entirely different.
It is therefore very important to be on our guard against any bait switch tactics employed by evolutionists which attempt to persuade people that what takes place in micro evolution is proof of macro evolution. Such attempts are at best, scientifically flawed.
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.”
[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), “Evolutionary theory under fire,” Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]
So, in the interest of clarification, I think it is reasonable, when referring to evolution, to understand it as a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world.
Here’s one very obvious question that I expect jumps out at everyone straight away. If a giraffe is related to an elephant, or a zebra is related to a horse, where exactly can I see all the intermediary “species” between those creatures and their ancestors? Is it not correct to say that under evolution changes to species take place very gradually? For that to be true, there must surely be a great many physically distinguishable creatures all along the spectrum of “evolutionary” change. And what exactly is a zebra, or a giraffe, or a flamingo currently “evolving” into? Where are the transitory generations?
For evolution to stand scrutiny, we should be awash with material evidence, bringing us back step by speculative step to whatever the common ancestors are supposed to have been. Is it not true that laboratory experiments on stratified sedimentary rock formations have shown the deposition of sedimentary particles to have taken place rapidly? Is it not logical to deduct that fossils found in a rock that took less than a year to form must have lived together at the same time? Is it not true that for the hypothesis of evolution to be a reality, billions of years of gradual change are required?
And forgetting about any fossil record, the “intermediate forms” of today should be visible to us right now, walking around. There must be a multitude of creatures, at every stage of development, at any moment in time.
Objective evolutionists at least recognise the risk involved in presuming that evolution has taken place:
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, from Johns Hopkins University, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):
“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave no legible fossil record.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, evolutionist, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
Evolutionist, David Kitts acknowledges the issue and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), “Search for the Holy Transformation,” Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
When it comes to the fossil record, evolution is one giant collection of enormous gaps. And of course, we have had the hoaxes, or frauds. In the case of Man, we need only recall Java man, Piltdown man, Peking man, and Nebraska man. There never has been found and there never will be found anything that is more than ape and less than man.When fraudulent means are used to provide so-called evidence of Evolution, it is reasonable to draw the obvious conclusions.
Let’s be clear, macro evolution and “speciation” (the evolutionary transformation into “new” species), no matter how much is said about natural selection, genetic variation, and mutation, are scientifically unfounded speculations.
All the “speciation” examples given fall into one of two categories:
“New” species that are “new” to man, but whose “newness” remains equivocal in light of observed genetic “variation” vs. genetic “change” and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
Or
“New” species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new “species” remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.
Let’s hear what some evolutionist authorities have said concerning natural selection:
“If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]
For those who refuse to accept, or even consider, that the order and beauty of the universe reflect the will of a Divine Creator, I might end with the words of the great G. K. Chesterton:
“To an atheist, the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody.”
Maybe ‘peaceful or otherwise’ was extreme. As was ‘barbecue’. I just get so angry. Please pray for me.
What’s a troll? For a 19 year old, I don’t understand this computer speak.
Catholic Convert
In simple-speak a “troll” is someone who goes around the internet just causing trouble. For what it’s worth, I don’t think you are a troll. I think you are rather confused about the various issues and problems in the Church but then, at 19 years of age, trying to convert to the Catholic Church during the worst ever crisis to afflict the Church, that is very understandable, especially if you are asking priests in your diocesan parish what they think of the SSPX. A bit like asking Alex Salmond if you should vote NO in the Scottish independence referendum. There’s only one answer!
On topic – I think! This report came into my inbox just now but it seems to be a hoax. Still, couldn’t help dreaming of the day when “dissenting” scientist sue somebody over evolution. Roll on!
I think Scientists say an example of an intermediary species is the archeopteryx. Forgive my spelling. Didn’t Scientists say that we share 90% of our DNA with a mouse? I don’t think Scientists say certain animals have, or will evolve into something different. Correct me if I’m wrong.
The debate about evolution would be clarified if we distinguish between micro-evolution i.e evolution within a species and macro-evolution which is evolution across the species barrier. We can breed pigeons to fly faster, or cows to produce milk and we can know that the first example of Suffolk Punch horse back was in the18th century so we can reasonably conclude that evolution can come about within species as a result of the actions of deliberate intent by breeders. However, the proponents of macro-evolution insist that the living things evolved from inert chemical BY CHANCE and not by intelligent design because the underlying sub-text is that if things happened by chance then God does not exist. It has now been scientifically proved to a high degree of certainty that evolution from inanimate chemicals to living forms is not scientifically credible so let’s always talk about evolution by random chance when we are discussing this issue so that we can be clear about what we mean.
By the way the fact that our DNA may be similar to that of animals or plants could very easily be used to support the idea that there is one creator. Why would He bother using different mechanisms when one will do.
Could someone clear something up for me? I find it heard to uphold Church teachings about the Virgin Birth and all the Miracles of Christ, and yet denounce evolution, specifically Macro-Evolution, as being false. How do you justify it?
There’s no connection at all between miracles and evolution. Are you saying that we could look at evolution as being a miracle? God works miracles usually sudden and with a definite purpose. Making the earth take millions of years to come together is hardly “sudden” and there seems no point to it.
No, I’m not saying that evolution was a miracle.We know that God made the Virgin Birth happen to enable the conception of God the Son as the Saviour of the World, and that Christ’s miracles were to prove His divinity. How did you infer that?
Comments are closed.