Oh, boy! Ray Comfort and Bill Donohue are arguing! The issue is evolution, of course; Comfort says that Christianity and evolution are incompatible, and Donohue is claiming otherwise. They deserve each other, and I don’t really care what either of them says, but I have to point out one glaring inconsistency in Donohue’s position. Here’s what he says:
Comfort is wrong. The fact is that in the 1950s, Pope Pius XII said there was no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith, as long as God was not excluded. Pope John Paul II affirmed this teaching in the mid-1990s.
In other words, the Catholic Church teaches that God is the author of all creation. How stages of human development have unfolded is a legitimate area of scientific inquiry, and it has nothing to do with rejecting God as the Creator.
This is nominally true — the Catholic church has been scrupulously vague on the intersection of their religion and the science of evolution. However, Donohue has not. In fact, he has shown considerable contempt for evolutionary theory himself. This past summer, he referred to me as “the Planet-of-the-Apes biologist“, and offered an interesting description of the theory of evolution: “the King Kong Theory of Creation“.
I guess that means the battle is between a moron and a two-faced lying hypocrite. Fun!
Maybe they’re both wrong. Again, we must defer to Forbes and Mickey Rourke for guidance in these matters.
Wait, which one’s the moron and which one’s the hypocrite? They both seem like they could be either.
Well, luckily Donohue is not in charge, they only have one guy authorized to make infallible statements. Pope Bill would be scary so.
An argument between two evolution deniers… at least one (Comfort) does it by religion, the other by… I don’t know.
Yippee!!! I love a good Christfight!
As big a fool as he is, you still gotta give Donahue the nod for the title of his article: “The simple mind of Ray Comfort”. That really says it all…
Of course Christianity, (or any other theistic religion), and evolution are incompatible.
Evolution was caused either by natural selection, and some minor factors such as founder effect, or else goddidit.
Atheism is quite safe then…the more the bozos kick each others shins over the core of their delusion the less likely they can be bothered with kicking the shins of the rational…
Of course that theory breaks down when they join forces to smite the unbelievers…but by then hopefully most of them will be to busy licking their own self inflicted wounds!
Ah, the Shia and Sunni camps of Christendumb.
Never mind any inconstancy; just savour the form of the argument. He is responding to the claim that the pope is wrong to claim that there is no conflict between evolutionary biology and Christianity. The proof he uses that the pope is right is that some popes said it.
Arguing with protestants: UR DOIN IT RONG!
<sits down with tub of popcorn>
I saw that and immediately had to catch myself from falling out of my chair laughing.
The need to do a redo of that old MTV claymation show Celebrity Deathmatch.
Call it Fundagelical Deathmatch
Mr. Donohue’s parting shot asks, “What’s next? The pope is the Anti-Christ?”
Protestants have been claiming that for a long, long time.
Let’s let these two debate evolution with Richard Dawkins as the moderator.
And I thought they were both two-faced lying hypocrites.
But Ray said something interesting. “Genesis says that God made man in His own image (a moral entity), as male and female, with the ability to reproduce after their own kind (within their own species).” At last we know what creationists mean when they throw in that word “kind”: apparently they mean species. Somebody should ask Ray what he makes of ring kinds.
Funnyguts:
Ray Comfort is the hypocritical moron and Bill Donohue is the moronic hypocrite. I hope that clears things up.
Rev. BDC: No, let’s be accurate about this, the Vateban are not Fundagelicals. It’s like how Maoists aren’t Stalinists; they get very worked over the differences.
IvanM:
Popcorn hell, I’m having bananas ‘n crackers!
Bill better hope that Ray doesn’t make a move for his banana.
Comforts comments on that blog are hilariously stupid… and in some cases offensive. That’s right Ray, I’m just pretending there’s no God… and the evidence is all around me. This man is seriously deluded.
Well, obviously, both of these guys think the other is a tragically confused heretic at best and an agent of darkness at worst.
It certainly does emphasize that promoting creationism in science classes really is establishing a particular Protestant religious viewpoint, and not just broadly generic religiosity.
Maybe even a cracker is subject to a scientific explanation, rather than a religious one.
I’m sure that’s one bridge too far, though.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Yeah good point.
How about Demented Fuckwit Deathmatch?
Ah, I followed your links to the “Planet-of-the-Apes biologist” and the “King Kong Theory of Creation” hoping that Donohue fleshed them out a bit, but that’s all he says on the subject, using them only as vague invective. While one can infer a “we-didn’t-come-from-no-monkeys” argument from just those phrases, it’s more likely, given what he says elsewhere, that he only means “we’re-not-just-apes-we-have-souls.” So I wouldn’t accuse him of the kind of major hypocrisy you’re implying. He’s not flipping between Creationism and Theistic Evolution. He’s sticking with the minor hypocrisy of Theistic Evolution.
Over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars Ed recently posted a chart showing the Pew Forum’s findings on “The Acceptance of Evolution by Various Religions.” (It’s a post from Feb 28 — I can’t put the link here because PZ apparently blocks or sends into moderation hell any url to Brayton’s scienceblog site, but people can look it up themselves.) It’s an interesting chart.
Surprisingly (given what’s supposed to be the Vatican’s “official” position), only 58% of Catholics accept evolution. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are lowest (22% and 8% respectively), but, again, “official” Mormon doctrine isn’t supposed to be anti-evolution, and they teach it at BYU. I’m guessing that, like many things in theology, there’s enough wiggle room for interpretation that people can more or less pick their own.
I think that a debate like that is a positive thing. Any thing that leads away from the trap of rigid fundamentalism is a good thing. For those who believe unconditionally and unquestioningly to be exposed to other ” believers” who can with reason and “faith” accept evolution as true is a step forward.
If the “debate” stimulates some to think a little bit more openly and question just a little their dogma (isn’t dogma what spot leaves on the lawn?) it will be good. the people who believe in creationism are like kindergartners when it comes to science which would be bad enough if it were not for the fear the permeates all fundamentalists.
Though I would not want to watch such a debate it would just make me craaaazzzey!
SUNDAY, SUNDAY!
Ray “Banana Man” Comfort versus Bill “Mad Dog” Donohue in the cage match of the century! It’s gonna be a no holds barred, fight to EXTINCTION!
Two IDiots enter, but only one will leave! This Sunday in Golgatha Arena!
Be there!
That’s not just Ray being Ray, though. St. Paul claims that the evidence for god is all around, and it’s also the excuse for why the “freedom to reject god” has the consequences of eternal torture if god is not “chosen” (obviously coerced in any sane view).
Ray has to cling to his religion’s lies, and, given his slight grasp of reality, is not too difficult to do.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
I think PZ Myers commenting on Ray Comfort vs. Bill Donohue is the best example of “Let’s you and him fight” I’ve ever seen, save for if maybe sometime in the future, Orac manages to wind up both John Best and Michael Egnor and aim them at each other. *grin*
Not to be pedantic (much) but there’s nothing inconsistent in arguing that Christianity and evolution are compatible whilst simultaneously rejecting evolution theory.
Equally, Christianity is compatible with the belief that Mumbai is in India but a Christian could consistently acknowledge the truth of this claim whilst also arguing that, in fact, Mumbai is not in India.
Sorry to be a bore.
PZ, I think that someone pointed out to Bill that his own faith REQUIRES him to accept that the pope is infallible and the pope said this and as a result he realized that he had to change his mind or else suffer eternal damnation for rejecting what is now catholic dogma. Does that make him a hypocrite or just ignorant of his own faith, or both?
“Daria” reference yesterday, “Celebrity Death Match” today. What a cool place to hang out!
@Richard Harris
DRIFT
its almost amusing to hear numerous false arguments beimg presented against another religious body
“The best-selling author doesn’t mince words: “The Vatican, in essence, is saying ‘Don’t believe Jesus or Genesis. Believe Darwin instead.’” He even goes so far as to say that “In the name of diversity, the Vatican is encouraging atheism, and that’s a terrible betrayal of Christianity.”
Is it possible to sue Banana man for his quote mining crimes on the front his bloody awful blog?
This is hilarious, it is hard to tell who is going to come up with the more insane comment as they are both utterly deranged – I get the feeling Ray might walk away crying into the arms of Kirk Cameron like he did after the Rational Response squad had positively shat on them – Bill can be a real meanie when he wants to!
:)
A bit off topic:
The Pope has held that in-vitro fertilization is not sacred like the approved natural way of procreating, so it would be wrong to say “holy IVF” but correct to say “holy fuck”.
But what would be the point? It is demonstrably true that Mumbai is in India; what, exactly, would the Christian’s counter-argument be?
The same holds for evolution. Evolution is demonstrably true. Therefore these people have to debate about whether their fairy stories are compatible with evolution. Christian arguments against Mumbai being in India would be about as truthful as their arguments against evolution.
“You’ve never been to Mumbai, how do you know it’s in India?” And such like.
No, that only applies in the case of humans. Elsewhere a “kind” is “whatever I need it to be for the current argument”, subject to the modifier “must contain at least one organism I have actually heard of”. So a kind might be a genus or family when talking about mammals, or a collection of multiple phyla elsewhere in the tree of life.
I don’t see how Christianity could be compatible with evolution. Who got to be the first human to have a soul, to sin and to be eligible for salvation? What about this person’s mother? Sorry, mom, you’re just an animal.
There really is a tremendous beauty to kook fights. They can annoy each other with their ongoing displays of impenetrable tardosity, leave the rest of the world alone…
It’s enough to make me want to start a kook matchmaking service…
‘Cept, I guess, if we indulge too much in this, it may end in the one side or the other going nuclear…
So now I’m trying to decide if it’s a risk that might be worth it all the same.
“I don’t care who wins; I’ll fricassee the loser!” -Henry the Chickenhawk
Somewhat OT, but given the time of year… I’m challenging folks to “Give up religion for Lent”. If you’re devout, make a true Lent sacrifice – go 40 days with no church, no praying, no proseletyzing, no tithing… just forget religion even exists and live your life according to your own rules and the laws of society.
Amusingly enough, as one of my blog visitors pointed out, there’s also a guy who thinks Comfort is a heretic because he’s too nice to those heretic Catholics!
When are Catholics going to figure out that they are not the “right kind” of Christians?
The great thing about your statement is that it’s timelessly true.
Also, they may all be Christians- but I’m fairly certain that Ray Comforts ilk (evangelical Chick tracts etc) don’t consider Catholics to be Christians, so I could see how this comes up.
…”The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which….”
Wow! What a pile of disinformation on this thread.
“Evolution a Dogma of the Catholic Church”
“Believe evolution or suffer eternal damnation”
“Evolution – official position of the Vatican”
No wonder you people are anti-Catholic. You don’t have a clue as to what it is.
That’s bogus, Planet of the Apes is much more accurate than Bill Donohue has ever been! Unless he’s talking about the re-make. That has a few scientific errors in it.
Look Silver Fox is here to make it a Three way Kook fight.
Oh and SF, it’s not that we are Anti-Catholic in particular, we are anti-nonsense.
And Catholics do not hold the monopoly on nonsense, though they do own Hotel on Park Place.
That’s not quite true. Papal infallibility is frequently misunderstood. It only applies when the Pope is teaching ex cathedra and it is usually not considered to have been invoked unless several conditions are met. This is the dogma as written in the First Vatican Council:
In brief, the Pontiff has to be pronouncing a doctrine that is binding on all Catholics as Supreme Pontiff. Also, in general, since Vatican I, for infallibility to be operative, the tradition has been that Popes specifically invoke the doctrine when making an ex cathedra pronouncement. They usually also only make such pronouncements when a doctrine has been called into question. A good example is the declaration by Pope Pius XII in 1950 that Mary was taken, body and soul, into heaven (the Assumption of Mary). In fact, that’s been the only time Papal infallibility has been invoked since 1870.
Nothing Pope Pius XII or Pope John Paul II has said about evolution invoked infallibility by any stretch of the imagination; a future Pope could conceivably invoke infallibility to reject evolution. I consider that possibility unlikely.
In any case, even though I agree that Papal infallibility is a silly dogma, most of the atheists, agnostics, and “free thinkers” who make fun of it really don’t know what the dogma really says. In fact, many Catholics don’t know what it actually says either. Many assume that it means that Popes are infallible whenever they speak about dogma, but that’s not true. There are fairly limited circumstances in which infallibility is claimed. Three conditions need to be met:
I liked Bill Donohue’s rhetorical question asking if they would next accuse the Pope being the Antichrist. Clearly he has not been aquainted Jack Chick’s lovely comics.
I realise that my disbelief in god may well be a lie, but I find it comforting. Does Ray really want to take it away from me? Christians are so heartless.
And Silver Fox is here!
Guys!
I’ll roll a big fat joint, sit back, and revel in my miserable nihilism.
In the name of diversity, the Vatican is encouraging atheism
No, it’s in the name of survival. The vat is big business and they’re not going to back a losing horse like classical cretinism.
Thanks Orac. Clears up a bit.
Hey, Silver Fox, why don’t you tell us what catholicism is? Just the main tenets. Come on, give us just, let’s say, three.
CRIPPL(ed capacity for sound reasoning) FIGHT!!!!
Well, Ray does have the powerful forces of Pat Robertson, Jack Chick and Kirk Cameron in his corner (of bugnutty views). What heavy hitters does Donohue wield? (somebody over at Faux News, I guess)
I look forward to watching them tear each other apart.
“Papal infallibility is a silly dogma, most of the atheists, agnostics, and “free thinkers” who make fun of it really don’t know what the dogma really says.”
As I said Orac, they don’t have a clue. At least you probably took me out of Big Dumb Chimp’s three way “kook fight”. And maybe you gave them a clue.
But you better watch out, they’re going to think you a “Poe” and kick you off the site for “godbotting”.
Tubi
The whole point is that the de facto truth of the claim that Mumbai is in India and the truth of evolution theory are not relevant to any discussion that focuses on whether or not one of these propositions is compatible with Christianity (or compatible with anything else for that matter).
While you and I agree that evolution is demonstrably true (as demonstrably true perhaps as the very obviously true “Mumbai is in India”) not everyone sees it that way unfortunately. Consequently, it’s perfectly consistent for a Christian to reject evolution based on any number of the many terrible “reasons” that we hear about every day) and yet still argue that it’s compatible with their religion.
To provide an illustration that’s completely divorced from the subject:
I believe that Paris is in France.
I also believe that the moon landings were not faked.
However, I also believe that the faking of the moon landings is completely compatible with my belief that Paris is in France: In other words, if it turned out that the moon landings really were faked, I wouldn’t have to abandon my belief about Paris.
In just the same way, a Christian who argues that evolution is compatible with Christianity but that evolution theory is false is in a position to say, “As a matter of fact I don’t believe in evolution because (…….blah blah dribble insert your own inane rant)” but even if I were shown so much evidence in support of evolution that I had to accept it’s truth I would still not have to give up my Christianity because the two things are entirely compatible.”
This isn’t deeply interesting stuff. I was just being a bit pedantic and picking PZ up on his use of the word consistent. And maybe Donahue is being inconsistent; my argument is simply that he is not being inconsistent simply in virtue of holding these 3 beliefs
1) Christianity shows the truth
2) Evolution has not in fact occurred
3) Evolution and Christianity are compatible
I’m boring myself now. I didn’t think that was contraversial.
Oh and SF, it’s not that we are Anti-Catholic in particular, we are anti-nonsense. And Catholics do not hold the monopoly on nonsense, though they do own Hotel on Park Place.
…and the Chimp for the Win!
Ahem. I don’t think anyone would ever kick Orac off this site for godbotting, or any other reason. Are you suffering from Dungeon envy, SF?
Ah, stupid silly old goat, thinking that people would think Orac is a Poe and get banned.
I checked a couple of Vegas bookies, but I don’t see the spread anywhere.
Andyo:
“Come on, give us just, let’s say, three.”
I can do better than that. Why don’t you google up the Nicene Creed, and you’ll have most of them. Why settle for three?
PZ, I still vote for altering the CSS code to show Silver Fox (and all godbots) some ComicSans love.
Sorry SF. Orac is a respectfully insolent clear box of blinking lights that is held in high regard by most (if not all) here. Him explaining something about Catholic doctrine doesn’t even come close to your blathering on incessantly about the nonsense that you do.
This is gonna be fun!
I’ll bet on Big Bad Bill to win. Ray is a whiny sissy.
Que the old Star Trek fight music….
…Not to mention that Orac actually added, y’know, facts into the discussion.
Because three (or maybe less) is all that is needed to realize the sillines (being graceful there) of my ex-religion. So the Nicene Creed is what you go for in your life? Never contradict it?
Oh, and there is a sweet irony in you not understanding what a Poe is. I guess that’s why Poes exist in the first place. Why on earth would someone think Orac was being less than serious?
Anybody else wondering if Bongo Bill will call for Ray to get fired from his job? He does seem to like doing that.
Oh, and there is a sweet irony in you not understanding what a Poe is. I guess that’s why Poes exist in the first place. Why on earth would someone think Orac was being less than serious?
I hate to defend SF, but I think he was just being overly sarcastic about his treatment here.
@#16
“Ray Comfort is the hypocritical moron and Bill Donohue is the moronic hypocrite. I hope that clears things up.”
Brothers, sisters, come together! Can’t we once just join hands and think of them as evil-annoying-idiot-fucks? I beseech you.
Starbix
“DON’T PANIC.” – Douglas Adams
So he was being a Poe?
I think we’re way past thinking of him as a Poe.
It is possible to be a Christian and believe in evolution by natural selection – there are many people in that position, especially in areas of the world which are not infested with swampfuls of brain-crushing fundamentalists. Fact.
It might be inconsistent (as has been argued above), but I don’t think a bunch of atheists should be having No True Christian arguments. If somebody considers him/herself to be a Christian, then I accept that labelling. It is not up to atheists to say “ooo, you can’t be a proper Christian because you don’t agree with stoning runaway slaves as per some obscure verse in Leviticus” or other such drivel.
Similarly it is perfectly possible to be a Roman Catholic and not accept papal infallibility. There are many people in that position too. Many Catholics dislike the whole Vatican set-up, but don’t feel that’s a good enough reason to leave the church (any more than, say, disliking a faraway uncle would be a good reason for cutting off all contact with one’s family).
Does it matter if people are quietly inconsistent in their beliefs or don’t follow the recipe on the packet in every detail in their doctrine, as long as they don’t make other people’s lives miserable?
Oh dear, am I going to suffer a No True Atheist attack?
The silly old goat worked hard to earn the treatment he receives here. And many here are happy to give it to him good and hard.
“I guess that means the battle is between a moron and a two-faced lying hypocrite.”
But which is which?
GregW: Don’t hold your breath. They are having a little tiff, but when did conservative catholic “anti-defamation” types ever try to cause real trouble for the conservative protestants who produce the most aggressive catholic hating material? Anti-religious types only say that catholicism is wrong, and harmful, and hilarious; the fundies say that individual catholics are servants of the devil.
If they were really about defending catholics from hate they would spend nearly all there time fighting with evangelicals of various sorts, but they don’t; it’s “atheists, gays, liberals and feminists opressing us with their lack of respect. Shut them up.” They are authoritarians, conservatives and catholics in that order.
@GregW [#72],
Does Ray have a real job?
What use does a true Bible-believing, man of God (e.g., Ray) have for filthy lucre?
PZ wrote: “I guess that means the battle is between a moron and a two-faced lying hypocrite.”
Ah, the classic, “Insincere force versus an insensate object.”
Thrilla in Vanilla.
Orac @ # 51:… Papal infallibility … only applies when the Pope is teaching ex cathedra and it is usually not considered to have been invoked unless several conditions are met.
As a technicality within Vatican rules, yeah – but just try to imagine what it would take to bring about a turnaround on, say, the Official Catholic™ taboo against contraception.
It’s like how Maoists aren’t Stalinists; they get very worked over the differences. – Matt Heath
Have to disagree with you here: all the Maoists I’ve come across revere Stalin as one of the “five great teachers” (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao) – I remember an (unintentionally) amusing party logo showing these five in profile, each partly obscuring his predecessor, and since each had less facial hair than the last, looking like an advert for Gillette. They all formally call themselves “Marxist-Leninists”, not Maoists (if you see “Marxist-Leninist” in the name of a political group, it’s Maoist), although admittedly some refer to “Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Tse-tung-thought”. I suppose you might find some non-Maoist Stalinists somewhere, but my impression is that they disappeared when Khruschev denounced Stalin – they either went along with the denunciation, or switched their allegiance to the PRC and Mao.
I’m really hoping that this is a precursor to Kook Wars (On the other hand, that usually leads to people getting killed…damn)
Joe
No wonder you people are anti-Catholic. You don’t have a clue as to what it is. – Silver Fox
Errors on whether particular stupidities are part of official Catholic dogma are of little significance. People can see the vileness of the Catholic Church in its oppression and hatred of women and gays, its wicked lies about condoms letting HIV through, its systematic shielding of child rapist priests, its support for loathsome right-wing dictators, its hypocrisy in preaching the virtues of poverty while accumulating vast wealth…
This is just wrong. The majority of xian denominations worldwide have no problem with evolution, RCC, mainline protestant, Mormon, some evangelicals and pentecostals.
It is also stupid. Since the above is true, it means that all that majority of xians according to Comfort are Fake Xians(tm). This implies that xianity is a dead and dying religion. It is now relegated to morons living in trailer parks in the south central USA. As their kids grow up and get better educated and wealthier, it will inevitably wither away into lunatic fringedom. According to Comfort.
But the Fake Xians(tm) don’t really have a problem with that. Xians have been fighting wars and massacring each other over just these matters of dogma for 2,000 years. In times past, Donohue and Comfort wouldn’t be verbally sparring over the internet. The catholic and fundie armies would be fighting it out somewhere in the midwest USA.
It is also brain dead stupid for another reason. Since evolution fact and theory are true, according to Comfort, xianity must be false. That is the problem with making lies a litmus test for belief.
It is also brain dead stupid for yet another reason. Nowhere in the NT does it say that disbelieving in evolution is necessary for salvation. Salvation is from faith, faith and good works, or good works, depending on which chapter of the inerrant bible one quote mines.
Comfort doesn’t sound very bright. I suppose babbling nonsense beats working for a living at a real job.
Still do. It is on the website of the WELS, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutherans. This is Michelle Bachmann’s church. I’ve always wondered how the catholics in her district manage to vote for her.
Hagee says the same thing. Robertson lumps in the methodists and lutherans with the catholics. If he could count, he might realize that the churches of the antichrist are much larger than the Real Xian(tm) ones.
I’m vaguely tempted to send to each of them an e-mail or blog-comment something along the following lines (subsititue the appropriate name for kook):
The problem is I’m not sure which would be funnier…
* Sending kook≡“Comfort” to bananaman and slimeball’s to slimeball; or
* Sending kook≡“Comfort” to slimeball, and slimeball’s to bananaman.
Hum…giggles?
Other ideas for stirring the kookpot?
Wait, which one’s which?
You don’t either. The first xians to question genesis as fact were, in fact, the first founders of the catholic church. St. Augustine and several prominent theologians. This was in 400 AD.
The RCC learned a lesson with geocentrism when they torched Giordano Bruno and almost burned Galileo. Torturing people to death in defense of silly and wrong pseudoscience facts is bad PR. Everyone knows who Bruno and Galileo are but few remember who the Pope and his henchman at the time were.
Ironically, there is a Catholic college in Kentucky named after the chief Prosecutor, Cardinal Bellermo. I doubt they have much of a science department.
Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention. Madison Square Garden presents “The Kook Fight of the Century.” In this corner weighing in at 138lbs. which includes his banana: Ray Comfort. In this corner weighing in at 330lbs which includes his pope: Bill Donohue.
Comfort: (with banana in hand) My Bible is the TRUTH!!!!
Donohue: (shakes Pope) My pope is infallible!!!
Comfort: Nahhh. Nahhhhh!!!! NAHHH!!! baNahhhNahhh!!!
Donohue: (sticks out tongue with Eucharist on it).
Announcer: It is a tie. They are equally kooky!!!!
In the Fundy Death Match, I’m pulling for Comfort. I just can’t get over how God designed the banana (and similar shaped objects) to fit into my mouth. Gotta love that God guy for making oral easier. I think God must have designed my tounge for her pleasure, as well.
The Bloviating Bananaman versus the Hypocritical Horse’s-ass! Watch them compete to see who’s truly ‘stone cold fuck nuts’!
No matter who loses, we win!
@Knockgoats: Fair enough. I guess I was using “Stalinist” to describe the groups usually called “Stalinist” by others – those parts of the European left that stayed resolutely pro-Soviet until the bitter end, the “tankies” – rather than those that self-identify as such.
The enemy of our enemy is our friend, right? So which one should we choose?
“Evolution is totally bogus!”
“It is NOT because the Pope said it’s true!”
“The Pope is a big stupidhead!”
“Is NOT!”
“Is SO!”
No. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is just next on your list. This is a case of that.
When I was in Catholic school in the sixties, we were taught that we could believe in evolution as long as we believed that somewhere along the way god put a soul in a monkey.
Looking at some of the boys in my ninth grade class, that wasn’t all that hard to believe.
That ex-cathedra nonsense makes the idea of infallibility more ridiculous, if that’s possible. I mean, he turns on ‘truth mode’ by uttering some invocation, and then anything he says is true?
If he fucks up, can he later claim that the truth magic wasn’t working? Or that he missed a word in the invocation?
Starbix @ #74: Bill Hicks for the win!
Pope: Klaatu Barada N… Necktie? Nickel? It’s an ‘N’ word, it’s definately an ‘N’ word.
I can’t get over how Confucian that sounds. :-}
Well Donohue and crew are definitely appropriately vague enough in order to continue arguing their side, I’ll give them that. Much to my dismay though, as I was speaking with my mother two weeks ago and we ventured onto the topic of science instruction in grade school and high school. I had the distinct, um, pleasure(?), to find out she’s all on board with the “teach the controversy!” and “equal time for equal theories” bullcrap.
But back to Donohue. I would agree with him if I were his strategist that staying vague helps them make the case. It’s dishonest of course; the Bible is obviously full of pablum on how anything was created. I would however predict that Donohue would re-qualify his stance vis a vis criticism of you PZ by saying that evolution happens, just not necessarily by the relationship to monkeys view of things. Dishonest yet, but I think I could safely bet that that’s how he’d couch it.
I guess that means the battle is between a moron and a two-faced lying hypocrite. Fun!
Actually, the battle is between one religious fanatic whose understanding of the Bible forces him to deny evolution, and another religious fanatic whose commitment to the authority of his outfit’s leadership compels him to affirm the latter’s pronouncements.
Neither can be said to be on the side of the angels were science is concerned. I dare say Mr. Donohue could be provoked by the fact that the path of information flow is oft-labeled a ‘Dogma’.
In fact, I would be interestd to see him so provoked (sigh). I don’t know, I’m just feeling pugnacious of late.
What does that mean? I demand clarification.
Scott Hatfield, you make a plenty salient point about Donohue’s acceptance. Having once been Roman Catholic, and raised in an entirely RC extended family, top-down observance is seen as a good thing.
I made sure to comment to Ray that he really needs to respond to Bill.
Who of course should be encouraged to respond right back.
Matt@99 – that’s the Mormon principle – every Prophet is right, until the next one gets new instructions from the boss.
I went to 12 years of Catholic school (which is probably why I’m an atheist) so let me give you the story from the Catholic point of view. But before I do that, not once in those 12 years did anyone teach anything other than Charles Darwin and evolution as the solution to how humans came into being. That includes the 80 year old nun I had teaching biology in high school. I never even heard of ID until I was in college.
Catholicism teaches that god created the universe. The church teaches that science is how he created the universe. In other words, god created a universe where evolution could work to create human beings. We could imagine many universes where evolution couldn’t work or where it couldn’t create more than a single celled creature. That is why evolution does not go against church teaching. In fact, that is why science can’t go against church teaching.
So the quote above is accurate. Of course, Donahue is a jerk so who knows what he will say tomorrow.
@57 Jello: I can’t believe it took 50+ comments before that Cartman quote was dropped. It’s the first thing I thought of after reading this.
@98 Lana: What is that, the Philip Pullman school of theology? What I find most ironic about that idea is that it probably makes the most sense of any “ensoulment theory” that I’ve heard, yet it’s best-known for being in an atheist’s fantasy novel …
Anyways, I think this is great. I’ve long wondered if setting these yahoos against one another wouldn’t be the best overall tactic for atheism as a movement. Right now, there’s more-or-less a judeo-christian bloc in America, and it’s freaking huge. But, catholics and all the various protestants and jews (and etc etc etc) are all pretty different. Let’s get their votes split, huh?
raven
That’s the way they want it. If they’re small, then they can appeal to a martyrdom complex. And, even though heaven is supposed to be infinite, there’s not enough room for the Catholic riff-raff to stir up controversy and hog God’s & the J-man’s attention. Kinda like a gated community where some of them live, by the way – they’re not all trailer park inhabitants.
Haha, I see that Ray Comfort ended his brief stint as the “Creationism Examiner” on examiner.com. Apparently, it’s because he couldn’t censor comments there.
I may not think very highly of Bill Donohue, but I still think he’s several steps above Ray Comfort.
Part of the article says:
“Donohue’s position. Here’s what he says: …The fact is that in the 1950s, Pope Pius XII said there was no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith, as long as God was not excluded.”
There is a huge
“conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith”
A few magisterial statements by Pope Pius Xll
are summarized in the following on-line article:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
– Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
– Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
. . .
– Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
. . .
– Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
– Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.
Additional references:
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation
Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective
http://www.kolbecenter.org
Genesis 1-11
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11;&version=31
KnockGoats @83:
Hey yeah, you’re right!
Marx and Engels
Showed us how
Lenin, Stalin
Chairman Mao
Burma Shave
I have wondered how the Catholics ignore Protestant “the Pope is the Antichrist” dogma. I mean, they are vicious. Try google-ing “the pope is the antichrist” for evidence.
When Clinton was still in office I got a flyer on my windshield (several pages, newsprint with color pictures) revealing that Bill Clinton was, in fact, only *pretending* to be a Baptist, but was actually *Catholic*. The horror, the horror.
There is a whole “King Kong Theory of Creation gang,” as I recall. Donohue is scared. Who can blame him?
re: Protestant “the Pope is the Antichrist” dogma.
I actually sorta researched this topic once; it all has to do with his hat.
“ex cathedra” : ‘from the chair’
Peter’s (purported) chair at the Vatican
Great link about the hat. Thanks Lynn!
Even this shows cherry-picking evidence – they’re using it as evidence that it was *always* known that the Pope was related to the number 666 (the inscription “Vicarius Filii Dei” numerologically equating to this). However, considering their “proof” actually reads: IESV CHRISTI VICARIO INFALLIBILI ORBIS SVPREMO IN TERRA RECTORI REGVM ATQVE POPVLORVM PATRI (all caps in original, don’t blame me) it seems something of a stretch. Does anyone know if there’s other evidence for “Vicarius Filii Dei” being used? For all I know it’s all over the place, but this isn’t it.
I’ve always thought that the main reason why the vatican never said much about evolution when Origin was first published is that they were a little preoccupied with more pressing problems – namely the (ultimately unsuccessful) struggle to preserve the existence of the Papal States against the rising tide of (secular) Italian unificatory nationalism.
Displacement Force of Water
Average ocean depth is 12,340 ft. At that depth, 5,364 psi or 386 TONS per sq. ft. is exerted on the floor. Current ocean crust thickness ranges from 3 to 6 miles. Considering that magma is virtually incompressible, it is conceivable that the added water weight from collapsing waters “above the firmament” during the Biblical flood account could cause tremendous displacement forces and rapid continental uplifts on a global scale. Ever step on a water bed, what happens to a person sitting on the edge? The crust would have been more fluid during and immediately following a global flood.
The Bible states that it had never rained and describes a mist from subterranean sources as the water cycle. The crust thickness and characteristics was evidently nothing that resembled what we have today. There is ample evidence of past climatic differences with a more temperate climate in today’s Polar Regions. Could this radically different “original design” system of water above & below the firmament create a more ideal environment producing greater growth for both plant and animals? (rhetorical)
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Rev.BigDumbChimp #406 applying uniformitarism principals and extrapolating Everest’s height differences back thousands of years is like measuring weekly shore line sand depths and ignoring “catastrophic changes” from hurricanes.