Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Evolution and the Pope

I suppose Wayne Zeller has seen this. Others may be interested. His beliefs are, after all, very influential for a large proportion of the world's population:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070411/sc_nm/pope_evolution_dc

Form the article:

"But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.

"Speculation about Benedict's views on evolution have been rife ever since a former student and close advisor, Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, published an article in 2005 that seemed to align the Church with the "intelligent design" view.

"Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain."

As a parting thought since when have evolutionists maintained evolution works by "random selection"?

TNZ asks:
"As a parting thought since when have evolutionists maintained evolution works by "random selection"?

Never.

Those made uncomfortable by reality often either promote their personal misunderstandings or intentionally confuse the science in order to discredit it.

Yes Dan. I know. I've read many books questioning evolution. I'm actually cynical enough to believe in many cases they are totally aware of what they're doing. They don't actually have any "personal misunderstandings".

I agree.

All one has to do is look at the intentional lies told to get the US on a few of its more gullible allies into Iraq to see how people in power will lie to maintain and expand their power.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
~ Lord Acton

I repeat this quote not because I think you've not read it before.
But rather to poignantly marvel at all the people who delude themselves into thinking it refers to "the other guy."

I suppose we won't know for sure the US admin is lying over Iran's nuclear weapons capability until Colin Powell comes out in support of said admin.

Colin Powell appears to have been lied too also. He quit the administration and did a duck dive that has made him essentially invisible.

He was a good soldier who was hit by "friendly fire." I find it rather sad. A career "in" the chain-of-command and then intentional sacrificed by that very chain.

In the case of Iran I don't think you are going to find any white hats. Both the US and Iran are lying. And the other 191 countries on this planet are acting like irresponsible fools letting this go on as we all know where it is going to lead.

I agree Dan. They used him because he had such high credibility. I'd say he'd be very p..... off, as we say here. I hope he can come back from it as I'm sure he has a lot to offer. Perhaps he's happy doing what he's doing, whatever that is.

Personally I'd like to see him do something out of character but that would demonstrate incredible character ... step up and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

To add a few less well known quotations:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
~ Edmund Burke

The world should never forget the mental fitness of the person leading the U.S. so here's a reminder:
"at some point we may be the only ones left.
That's OK with me. We are America."
~ George W. Bush

One source among many:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~chernus/NewspaperColumns/WarAndPeaceIssues/NuclearProliferation.htm

When I first saw the article was by a professor of religious studies I was a bit nervous but it's good. That means I agree with him! He summed up with this:

"It turns the world into a schoolyard where the U.S. is the reigning bully, ruling by nuclear intimidation alone."

Ultimately that's the problem. Not easily fixed. News here is that Hillary and Obama have each raised megamillions of dollars for their campaigns. Suggests only the wealthy decide who is president. No wonder your voting level is so low. Arguments here about capping spending. Last election the conservatives used some underhand methods of fundraising. In theory here parties are given money in proportion to how many seats they already have. We have proportional representation which I think is working very well. Too many parties for big business to effectively buy off. But not as many as Israel where the small parties have too much say. Parties here have to get at least five percent to get in. Anyway what's this got to do with the Pope?

TNZ wrote:
"When I first saw the article was by a professor of religious studies ...."

And knowing that I posted it eh.

Chose that one, from the many, specific because of that linkage.

Elections here have turned into a self-serving feeding frenzy from the television media. First they focus not on issues but rather on monies raised. Then 80+% of the money raised goes to the media for advertising. An informed electorate is a quaint old notion of no interest to the corporate media. You can always make more money from stupid people.

"And knowing that I posted it eh."

Good on you Dan.

You wrote:

"An informed electorate is a quaint old notion of no interest to the corporate media."

Yes. Because then the people might vote the wrong way.