Ben Stein Expelled

[Gudrid]

Derail incoming...don't want to start a new thread or comb google search results when I can probably get an intelligent answer here with haste! Such is the generousness of the FoH community.

1. Do most Catholics believe the Bible is God's inspired word?

2. What are the other Catholic texts that are not part of the Bible? That is, is there a book with interpretations/laws/decrees from the Pope or others that say stuff like 'it's okay to be gay as long as you don't practice it.'

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Schatze

Yeah you're right, it was probably the Dover hearings.

It thoroughly trashed ID and I'd suggest any ID advocates go read up on the judgement and opinion.

The Dover ruling basically states that ID is a religious belief and not a valid science in any way, shape, or form, and thus should not be taught as "science." Nor can it be forced on students, as doing so would violate the Constitution.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Schatze

...Creationism itself, as in either old earth or especially young earth creationism, is laughable by anyone with any sort of education whatsoever....

...So it needed to be respun in a way that wasn't quite as ludicrous to people. Hence, ID....

...1.) To undermine evolution which theists perceive or claim is an attack on their beliefs. Few if no atheists will say anything like, "evolution therefore no God! HA!" because we never, ever believed in creationism in the first place and thought it a ridiculous idea that only a [/b]delusional person[/b] could believe in this day and age....

...theology (lol)...

So yes, my original statement was correct: you are saying I and anyone who believes in God + evolution = life, is a moron. So no, I wasn't using "thoroughly dishonest debate tactics" now was I? You can't stop insulting religion as a whole even when you are saying you are not insulting religion as a whole.

You seem to be an intelligent person and you have stated that you are a scientist so I will make the attempt to get you to see your stance from a religious person's point of view. You are saying that evolution is the sole creator of life. In all of the Abrahamic religions, it is stated that God is the Creator of life. If you are removing God from the beginning of time, you are removing Him from all subsequent time. You are basically saying educated people shouldn't make any attempt to reconcile their religion with the scientific explanation of the beginning of life on Earth because to do so is ludicrous. Well, to billions of people on this planet their religious beliefs are not ludicrous. In fact, many people would DIE to defend their rights to this very day. Many of the first white inhabitants came to this country to escape religious persecution because they WERE dying. Do you see how serious religion is to people? Do you see how the subject is not laughable, nor is it delusional, nor is it ludicrous? It is a very serious and simply cannot be dismissed because it is inconvenient to scientific progress. Scientists have been murdered in the past because they gave no respect to how their discoveries might be seen in a religious light. I would call a job hazard like that pretty damn serious. For many people, religion is the only solace from the hardships of their daily lives and you want to lay scorn upon them for seeking that solace. If you continue to scoff at any sort of diplomacy between science and religion, how can you be surprised if there is not some sort of backlash?

[lendarios]

No Akaris, he is saying God + Creationism = life is a fool.read 4 words before the part you bolded. Here ill help you.

Creationism itself, as in either old earth or especially young earth creationism, is laughable by anyone with any sort of education whatsoever

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Gudrid

Derail incoming...don't want to start a new thread or comb google search results when I can probably get an intelligent answer here with haste! Such is the generousness of the FoH community.

1. Do most Catholics believe the Bible is God's inspired word?

2. What are the other Catholic texts that are not part of the Bible? That is, is there a book with interpretations/laws/decrees from the Pope or others that say stuff like 'it's okay to be gay as long as you don't practice it.'

Catholics tend to be a bit more progressive about what they believe in than the evangelicals in the US. Now, I'm speaking as a born and raised Canadian Roman Catholic who has rejected it's teachings. I loved dinosaurs as a kid and was fairly sharp, and the second I started reading the Bible in preparation for my first communion I was like "hey what the hell, dinosaurs are millions of years old, this Creation thing is bullshit."

The one thing you have to remember about Roman Catholicism is that there's over a billion who claim to be one and it's practiced differently in different countries. Chile is a very Catholic country, for example, and my understanding is that the public there is largely against abortion, while in Canada abortion is not even a political issue (if you raise it as one, you're labelled an extremist and your career is over).

But from my perspective, no, Catholics don't believe that the Bible is the word of god direct from his mouth. The Bible is however a holy book supposedly inspired by things that actually happened in the past. As far as which parts are literal and which are figurative, that's a fuzzy line and something I can't really answer for your. Yes, all Catholics believe Jesus Christ was born to a virgin mother, crucified, died, buried, and rose on the 3rd day. But do all Catholics believe in Creation as the Bible lays it out? No, in fact it's Vatican policy to more or less accept evolution through natural selection. John Paul II essentially stated as much.

As far as texts outside of the Bible, there isn't really. The writings of popes and cardinals is obviously very influential and can dictate church policy for decades or centuries, but they're not collected in some sort of running, regularly updated play book that Catholics follow. There's no pamphlet stating the Church's official stance on acceptable means of birth control, signed by the pope at the bottom.

So in short, most Catholics would look at the situation in the US in regards to evolution and say "boy are those guys fucked up" to themselves.

[Eomer]

Scientists have been murdered in the past because they gave no respect to how their discoveries might be seen in a religious light.

And this is supposed to be an argument in favor of respecting religious belief systems? Tell me, is there an epidemic of abortion doctors running around shooting priests and nuns? Which side needs to come to their fucking senses and give the other some respect and tolerance?

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Catholics tend to be a bit more progressive about what they believe in than the evangelicals in the US...

You are talking about Catholics as a people instead of Catholicism as a church. The church itself is a bastion of stubborn, backwards thinking.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by lendarios

No Akaris, he is saying God + Creationism = life is a fool.read 4 words before the part you bolded. Here ill help you.

Creationism itself, as in either old earth or especially young earth creationism, is laughable by anyone with any sort of education whatsoever

lol wut

Originally Posted by Eomer

And this is supposed to be an argument in favor of respecting religious belief systems? Tell me, is there an epidemic of abortion doctors running around shooting priests and nuns? Which side needs to come to their fucking senses and give the other some respect and tolerance?

And you wonder why I hope there is a God. Yeah, people are fucked in the head and will do some crazy shit if you try and force upon them things which they disagree with. That is the reality of it. You have to be diplomatic and ease people into change or there is a huge backlash. If, God forbid (lol), that Kansas decision went the other way, it would be actively setting science back. That is what has happened in the past and I could hate for it to happen again. During the Dark Ages, scientific discovery ground to a halt as mysticism and superstition took hold. People were scared with all the diseases and marauders floating around that they jumped to religion as an escape, and gave it absolute power over the government. We still haven't recovered from this, even though we live in a largely secular country. (And before someone says it, yes we ARE a secular country, that is why al Qaeda wants to kill us all.) My point is, religious people are a hell of a lot more dedicated to their belief system than scientists are and as such, their minds are much harder to change.

[Schatze]

Arrakis:
No, I did not say "evolution + god = you're a moron".

There are many people who believe that the first cause, whatever it may be, put things into motion, and, obeying the laws of cause and effect, the first cause itself caused history to unwind the way it did, evolution to happen, etc. There are also individuals who believe in a more personal God, who, being omnipotent, omniscient, and timeless, upon creation put into motion the events that would lead to today. That evolution was the mechanism used for the development of life. Fine, whatever. If that's your opinion, but you realize that God didn't pop in to magic up the eye or the flagellum, fine.

Is this what you mean by theistic evolution? If so, then you really should be clear you're not defending ID. Why?


That is NOT ID. ID dresses itself up as a hypothesis or even theory and they try to muster evidence to prove it. Hence, why irreducible complexity is such a buzzword in the ID circle (and creationism scene before that). Yet what irreducible complexity implies is that God is actively involved in the development of life, that is, he steps in and goes "Hocus Pocus! Poof, an eye!" As well, in its attempts to pass itself off as a theory, it claims there is proof that life could not have developed through naturalistic processes; yet if the initial creator God set in motion all that is at the beginning, there would be no way to determine what is "naturalistic processes" and what is "God's hand" without finding a "hocus pokus!" moment. Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless God need to go, "Oh shit, "POOF!" I forgot about fucking single celled locomotion. Oh shit, eyes too. Oh man, my creations are dying from small bruises. Poof, blood clotting". Just doesn't make any sense. While the slippery slope fallacy is usually a fallacy, in this case, it's not. ID really is a salient that the religious right in the US are trying to drive into secular education in order to get creationism taught. That's all it is, really, except for the name change.

This is why ID is just creationism rebranded, and why yes, if you believe in ID, you're a moron.

So to answer your accusation, no "God + evolution = life != you a moron". "God + creationism = you're a moron".

---
To someone else;
Question someone asked about Catholics. I'm NOT a Catholic. Never have been. There are several things you need to realize about Catholicism before the question can be answered. One, there is a huge difference between 3rd world Catholicism and Western Catholicism. Two, there is a rather large discrepancy between how both priests and lay folk treat Papal bull and "official" theology. Third, there will always be hard liners in any group.

Again, going by Canada, no Catholics are not biblical literalists. They do not believe that the bible is the direct inspired word of God, nor that it should be taken as such. None that I've ever met. That's pretty much a Protestant thing. Why? Because priests are fucking educated. I'm sure in the more progressive sects you'll find educated protestant ministers, but in the evangelist extreme? No way. These folks are usually homeschooled and get their "degrees" from unaccredited diploma mills.

Why does this education matter? Because they get rigorous training and logic and theology as well as the natural sciences. They realize the inherent contradictions between the whole "fire and brimstone thing" and the "all knowing, omnipotent, God who died for your sins". They also realize that large parts of the bible are metaphorical, as they make no sense otherwise. Catholic priests have always been an educated elite (see; all the groundwork for the modern development of science), and while they may not be an "elite" anymore, they still maintain the emphasis on education. Whereas your typical firebrand evangelist preacher usually is a preacher, because, well, his pappy were a preacher, or "he got called to it". There is no equivalent to the rigorous seminary process before being ordained for most protestant sects.

I'll give an example of the difference between Catholics and the evangelistic protestants. The former Prime Minister was a Catholic. Under his government, full, state sanctioned gay marriage was enacted. Meanwhile, the Vatican started furrowing its brow, tried to inspire a revolt. Didn't happen. He could have squashed it, gone for civil unions, invoked the not-withstanding clause, etc. Yet he was able to enact a policy based on secular rationalism and not whatever his particular religious beliefs were.

Our current premiere is Roman Catholic. Yet he pushed through a province wide vaccination program against HPV and had his daughter immunized. How do you think the church feels about that? Not too happy.

Catholics here, and Catholic politicians as an extension, are by and large rational secularists who are also theists. The politicians realize that there is a difference between personal religious beliefs and the laws they should be enacting. It's the protestants here who SUCK at keeping church and politics separate (caveat; the largest sect of protestants here are just as progressive and secular as your typical Catholic; however, there is a large minority of evangelist, fundamentalist protestants who are not). Every once in a while they trot out a religious kook to run for them, who fails miserably. Every once in a while they decide playing the religious politics game is to their advantage, and they always get burned for it. The religious wedge candidate lost the recent provincial election over the "slut vaccine" Roman Catholic, even though the sitting premiere isn't too popular. But the religious wedge backfired, especially in the face of the HPV thing which most people approve of being available.

The Conservative party even split over the issue of religion (well, there've been several splits). The Canadian Alliance was a conservative, protestant Christian sect that ostensibly also served Western interests. Outside of the West, they lost, hard. Not necessarily because of their base (the West), but because they tried to blend religion and politics. Their leader was completely roasted by the media for such things as being a YEC, not campaigning on Sunday (since our elections are usually called only about a month before the dissolution of government, not campaigning on Sunday is a big deal), etc. They realized the whole "religious kooks from the West" wouldn't get them anywhere so they re-merged with the Conservative party and have been doing their best to gag their religious loons ever since. They ran on a non-religious platform and won a minority government. They're aiming for a majority. But if they start mixing religion into the issues, they will lose the next election, despite a lack luster field of competitors. The current Prime Minister is a protestant, but, just like Catholics, no one cares as long as he keeps politics and religion separate.

[SalaciousTunare]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Catholics tend to be a bit more progressive about what they believe in than the evangelicals in the US. Now, I'm speaking as a born and raised Canadian Roman Catholic who has rejected it's teachings. I loved dinosaurs as a kid and was fairly sharp, and the second I started reading the Bible in preparation for my first communion I was like "hey what the hell, dinosaurs are millions of years old, this Creation thing is bullshit."

The one thing you have to remember about Roman Catholicism is that there's over a billion who claim to be one and it's practiced differently in different countries. Chile is a very Catholic country, for example, and my understanding is that the public there is largely against abortion, while in Canada abortion is not even a political issue (if you raise it as one, you're labelled an extremist and your career is over).

But from my perspective, no, Catholics don't believe that the Bible is the word of god direct from his mouth. The Bible is however a holy book supposedly inspired by things that actually happened in the past. As far as which parts are literal and which are figurative, that's a fuzzy line and something I can't really answer for your. Yes, all Catholics believe Jesus Christ was born to a virgin mother, crucified, died, buried, and rose on the 3rd day. But do all Catholics believe in Creation as the Bible lays it out? No, in fact it's Vatican policy to more or less accept evolution through natural selection. John Paul II essentially stated as much.

As far as texts outside of the Bible, there isn't really. The writings of popes and cardinals is obviously very influential and can dictate church policy for decades or centuries, but they're not collected in some sort of running, regularly updated play book that Catholics follow. There's no pamphlet stating the Church's official stance on acceptable means of birth control, signed by the pope at the bottom.

So in short, most Catholics would look at the situation in the US in regards to evolution and say "boy are those guys fucked up" to themselves.

Well, I was born raised Roman Catholic, I went to a private Catholic high school. There are some things I have to throw in here in response to what you typed. While some catholics are progressive... the Vatican itself is most definately NOT progressive whatsoever.

When the Vatican condemns any form of birth control for any means necessary including condoms to prevent aids, then something is very very backward. The official stance on the vatican is any sexual intercourse outside of marriage, and NOT open to life is against God's will. That means... that you cannot use a condom with your wife if you plan to only have 3 children. That means you cannot use a condom with your wife if she has a yeast infection, etc etc etc. Is it any wonder why you have these Catholic families with 12 and 13 children? Of course people will have sex, and absolutely married people will. The idea that you cannot plan your family so that you don't live beyond your means is idiotic at best.

The second thing I think is ridiculous is that the Vatican is fine with In vitro fertilization, but is against stem cells. This is 100% flawed in any way you slice it. In vitro fertilization removes many eggs, and combines many of them with sperm to conceive many pre-implanted embryos. The fertility clinic decides which eggs have the best chance of going full term. The rest of the eggs are discarded or in some cases permanently put into suspended animation. So, in order to create one life it is okay to permanently put multitude of lives into permanent suspended animation? For those that do not know, the Vatican believes life begins at conception, the moment the egg is fertilized. However, these permanently frozen embryos, if we are to believe are "souls" if they are true life, it is an absolute crime to put them in chryostasis indefinately. The only alternative is to admit the cells are just a goop, and to move them along to stem cell research labs. The Vatican will never do this, as it opens up the idea of the morning after pill, and debate over at what point during pregnancy is abortion wrong, etc.

The bible as taught by the Vatican is divinely inspired. The only true words of God, are those spoken from the four gospels, which are the direct accounts of Christ's life on Earth.

However there are books that are not in the bible, that the Vatican has deemed, not divinely inspired. How they made this conclusion was unknown, one of which was The Book of Thomas. The Book of Thomas is argued by some to be the Gospel that represents Jesus most true. There is also the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, argued to have been removed because the Roman Catholic church was led by Peter. There is obvious competition for Christ's love (atleast from Peter) between Mary and Peter. Some people honestly believe Magdalene was Christ's wife on earth, and that the church later soiled Mary Magdalene's presence by claiming her a whore, etc.

It sure makes for great speculation, just watch the Da Vinci Code.

[GrobbeeTrull2.0]

So, what part of believing that something created life on earth precludes me having to believe in God? Because I don't.

All of the above is fun masturbation for the Atheists, I'm sure. But we don't KNOW how the earth was created. I mean, there are two competing theories about it. Which is right? How do we know? Was Lyra really what smashed in to earth cooling it down and making our moon? Or did the moon just sort of... float by and get stuck? Did life happen through abiogenesis, or are we really alien shit? No one can say one way or the other, and both might have happened simultaneously. Who knows.

But I guess whatever people need to keep hating on religion.

[Schatze]

Yes it does, or it means you're whack.

How did the even more complex species originate to design us? Were they designed by some other species? What about the first? How did they get here? Warp drive?

So either you believe aliens designed life on earth 800mya-4bya, you're being pedantic and you put weight into panspermia (which is a valid theory, if not that widely supported), or you eventually come to a non-naturalistic (e.g. supernatural) conclusion.

Your solution to the problem is far more complex than the problem yourself. I'd put Mayan creation myths just ahead of warp drive aliens on the plausibility scale.

edit: the moon is too large to be gravitationally captured, matches the composition of the Earth's crust to a T, and I'd never heard the Mars like mystery object called Lyra before.

If you're advocating panspermia, advocate it. Don't play word games and dance around. If you mean aliens flew here on warp drives and created/seeded life, say so. If you're saying aliens designed complex life, and all the cellular mechanisms etc., then you're talking ID but you're the only non-schizophrenic and/or new ager I've heard whose actually posited this other than as a Devil's advocate.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Schatze

edit: the moon is too large to be gravitationally captured, matches the composition of the Earth's crust to a T, and I'd never heard the Mars like mystery object called Lyra before.

I believe he's referring to the Orpheous Theory. You can find a short video about it here Planet X, Nibiru, Ancient Astronauts, NASA, UFO's about halfway down the page. It originally aired on the Discovery Channel and has Patrick Stewart narrating it.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Schatze

This is why ID is just creationism rebranded, and why yes, if you believe in ID, you're a moron.

So to answer your accusation, no "God + evolution = life != you a moron". "God + creationism = you're a moron".

Hmm, looks like I am skating the edge of being a moron then. Guess I better be careful.

I am curious, where do you believe life on Earth came from?

[huh]

Originally Posted by Schatze

edit: the moon is too large to be gravitationally captured, matches the composition of the Earth's crust to a T, and I'd never heard the Mars like mystery object called Lyra before.

Theia
Giant impact hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia