BLASPHEMY: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Sun Dec 1 01:08:55 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> Even if I were to grant such a silly claim, it has nothing to do with
>> Catholicism, idolatry, Ishtar, or Mother Earth.
>>
>> (YOU are blasphemy!)
>
>We already know, as you've proven in spades, that you "liberals" really are
>incapable of grasping such concepts.  If you were at all capable of
>comprehending the first word in The Holy Bible,

You certainly aren't.  Indeed, I think it quite likely that you don't
even KNOW the first word in The Holy Bible.  (hint: it isn't "In").

>then you would already know
>that it explains very clearly how the terms "evolution" and "from the sea"
>incorporate all forms of idolatry,

The Holy Bible does not discuss evolution, and it indeed describes
that the earth was covered by a "sea", commonly called "Noah's flood",
and thus all land-dwellers did come from the sea.

>and that it prescribes DEATH to those who practice such idolatry.

No it doesn't.

>But in defense of the Catholic Church, it's not likely that Kennedy was
>being a Catholic when he spoke those words, because the Catholic Church at
>that time certainly did *not* endorse "evolution".

Actually it did.

>From the words of the current Pope:
http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html
>In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had
> already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the
> doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that
> one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42
> [1950], pp. 575-576). 
...
>4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as
> well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani
> generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious
> hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that
> of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological
> conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were
> a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind
> from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also
> spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible
> with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. 
>
>Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical,
> new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis
> in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory
> has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of
> discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither
> sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted
> independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this
> theory. 

So the Catholic Church accepted evolution officially as a theory
compatible with the Bible as early as 1950 (and one might find in the
1950 essay that the Church was not opposed to evolution even before
then).

But don't let facts stand in the way of your "direct observations",
nincompoop.  Just remember that Christ commanded you to remove the
beam from your eye.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list