17110 Responseshttp://www.nullifidian.net/2007/04/11/pope-denies-evolution-is-provable/Old+man+in+a+dress+denies+evolution+is+%22provable%222007-04-11+14%3A21%3A50nullifidian to “Old man in a dress denies evolution is “provable””

1. The Atheist Jew on April 11th, 2007 6:01 pm

   I’m going to write on this myself, but I read this as being very positive. The statements clearly show that the Pope believes evolution is fact. All he is adding is that it can’t be repeated in a lab.

2. nullifidian on April 11th, 2007 6:05 pm

   BEAJ, but it can be replicated in a lab, although this can be denied if one likes to make the distinction between so called macro- and micro-evolution.

   This sort of differentiation only gives those that like to deny such things an extra avenue of denial when all they are doing is equivocating over scale.

3. nullifidian on April 11th, 2007 6:06 pm

   And he’s still an old man in a dress. ;-)

4. King Aardvark on April 11th, 2007 8:32 pm

   Now, now, we have to be sensitive about these issues. Regardless of what we think, there is nothing inherently wrong about an old man wearing a dress. That old men wearing dresses should be viewed as weird is just a societal construct. ;-)

   However, we can and should make fun of him for his head-in-ass views about science and reality, in general.

5. nullifidian on April 11th, 2007 8:41 pm

   Ah no, I wasn’t disparaging the fact that he’s a cross-dresser, I was merely reïterating it, and possibly pointing out what the christian bible says about such things. :-)

6. ES on April 12th, 2007 10:38 pm

   What I can’t understand is how Catholicism doesn’t have a problem with evolution. I mean, no Adam and Eve = no original sin. No sin = no need for Jesus’ redemption of humankind. Doesn’t that kind of wipe out your whole story?

7. nullifidian on April 12th, 2007 10:40 pm

   LOL ES, excellent point! :-D

8. AV on April 12th, 2007 11:15 pm

   As far as I can tell, Catholicism since Pope John Paul II doesn’t have a problem with evolution insofar as it pertains to the development of bodies; however, the church claims that God is responsible for the creation of souls.

   In other words, the Catholic Church is firmly in the NOMA camp. Science can account for the material, observable universe; but invisible pink unicorns, celestial teapots, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and bullets with butterfly wings are God’s territory.

9. The Atheist Jew on April 12th, 2007 11:34 pm

   If the Catholic church had a major problem with evolution, then why the hell is Dr. Ken Miller still a Catholic?

10. nullifidian on April 13th, 2007 12:28 am

    BEAJ – who can say why any kind of theist (or anyone, for that matter) holds the views that they do? I’ll leave that to the individual to explain.

    Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate that the catholics are mostly supportive of evolution, but it’s their reasoning that I don’t appreciate as much. As AV says above, the attitude of NOMA that they (may) hold comes down, as many others have commented, to a case of compartmentalisation of reality and wishful thinking.

    Is this top-level orthodox catholic support for evolution because they actually believe in the science of it and because it’s compatible with their scripture (as they see it) or is it because they can’t reasonably deny it any more without looking like The Discovery Institute’s senile old grandpa?