That Catholic-Anglican move: 10-23-09
October 23, 2009
I will tell your right up front that I don't quite know what to make of the Vatican's recent announcement that it is going to create new structures that would welcome disaffected Anglicans to be Catholics while keeping some of their Anglican practices.
Is the Vatican (pictured here) fishing in the Anglican lake? John L. Allen Jr.'s rather breathless National Catholic Reporter story quoted Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s top ecumenical official, as saying that's exactly what the Vatican is not doing: “We are not fishing in the Anglican lake.”
If you're interested in this Catholic-Anglican story as told by other news agencies, click here for the Christian Science Monitor report. A report from the BBC is here. The Reuters story about this is here. And a report on the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog is here.
Is this a wonderful development that shows needed progress toward ecumenism and toward the possibility of an eventual reunion of the worldwide Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church? Uh, well, maybe, maybe not.
Two top Anglican bishops, in a remarkably indirect statement, put it this way: "The on-going official dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion provides the basis for our continuing cooperation." In other words, maybe, maybe not.
Is this new move a victory for those Anglicans described by The National Catholic Reporter as "unhappy with liberalizing moves in the Anglican Communion, including the ordination of women as priests and bishops, the ordination of openly gay clergy and bishops, and the blessing of same-sex unions"?
Well, maybe. A bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, which represents some of those people, issued a statement saying that “the Vatican is opening a door for Anglicans who sense a call to be part of the Church of Rome to join that body and still maintain Anglican traditions. This move by the Catholic Church recognizes the reality of the divide within the Anglican Communion. . ."
But if you read church history, you find that often -- not always -- people who break away from one group wind up finding fault with the group they've either created or to which they've decided to become attached. I think (yes, a Protestant is saying this) that generally the church is better served when members stay and work for change from within. Still, a self-described conservative calls the pope's invitation to Anglicans "brilliant" because it's rooted in respect for traditionalism.
I'm all for moves toward Christian unity. I'm just not sure this new Vatican move is one of them. It looks to me more like giving upset Anglicans a chance to leave and become Catholics but not really change.
AND: Earlier today John L. Allen Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter posted this piece about what he sees as the meaning of the Vatican's move.
* * *
No thanks, Pope, some Canadian Anglicans are saying to the Vatican's invitation. In fact, some of them are suggesting Catholics leave the Roman church and become Anglicans.
* * *
P.S.: I mentioned here the other day that Eboo Patel was coming to be the keynote speaker at this year's Kansas City Festival of Faiths. For a video message from Patel about that very event, click here.
HBO is running a documentary "Outrage" about gay politicians who have been hiding their homosexuality while opposing gay rights and laws protecting gays - have Tivo'd it, should be interesting.
So, god is after "thought crimes" in people. I wonder, who is after "thought crimes" in god? He surely must have "sinful" thoughts all the time - e.g. telling Moses and Joshua to go and rape women and kill everyone while opening up bellies of pregnant women killing their babies - nice!
Actually, I am thinking now that Jesus clearly says those believing in him will go to "his Heaven or Hell" (Nobody will come to my father but through me), so all others will go to "their own respective Heavens and Hells" - will be fun. So this means, there are "many gods" out there (e.g. god said Adam and Eve became "one of us") - all makes sense. Also Serpent said the same thing.
CHRISTIANS, YOU ARE SCREWED! - I am going to Atheistic hell or heaven, not to "your" hell or heaven, or by same token, if you have a mumbo jumbo in your brain about your space alien (e.g. believe in jesus but don't believe in hell) you will end up in someone else's hell, or if your god is on vacation, you may end up in a Scientological hell! Or worse yet, your sould will be torn apart and end up in an infinite number of hells? Or will go through them one by one as one entitity? Ouch!
Bill, did you ever talk about porn and believers? Gotta love this...
Porn in the USA: Conservatives Are Biggest Consumers
The Republican party must be full of homosexuals since conservatives are more likely to consume pornography.
Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.
Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.
States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."
Posted by: IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org | October 23, 2009 at 08:04 AM
"But if you read church history, you find that often -- not always -- people who break away from one group wind up finding fault with the group they've either created or to which they've decided to become attached."
Ever since the Protestant Reformation Broke Away from the Catholic Man-Made Religion, Many new Man-Made Religions began. "Now we have a new direction for the Anglican back to Catholic move.
How many people break away from Each Group of Protestant Religions, and make a new Group of Man-Made Protestant Religions?
Is there No Where Else To Go, except back to the Catholic Religion? Or is it Time to Give Up Man-Made Religions, especially Protestant Breaks since 1900, and the Return to a High Tech Science Equal Sharing Lifestyle?
High Tech Science is 'Super'Natural to Natural Humans. High Tech can Prove Life on Earth was Colonized by High Tech Human Male and Female Clones, from Space, when the Scripture and Myth are translated as High Tech Science.
Eternal Purebred Life After Birth is Possible on Planets and in Spaceships, with High Tech Equal Male and Female Clone Reproduction, like Adam and Eve Clones.
High Tech Birth Planets Do Not have Population Explosions, and Humans have the High Tech to Live Forever, and Escape their Dying Planet, Solar System, Galaxy and Universe, and go to a New Home Planet, or Colonize a New Planet for another Space Base.
They do not use their Planet as a Dump, nor Pollute their Atmosphere, nor make Nuclear Bombs to blow up their Planet.
Eternal Life After Death, is Part of Natural Mans Man-Made Religions, about our High Tech Human Ancestors, the God/Us in our Human Image in Genesis, that Colonized Earth, and Do have Eternal Life After Birth, on Planets and in Spaceships.
Posted by: Dolores Lear | October 23, 2009 at 08:30 AM
"Dolores, I am amazed that you'd see my previous post as backing up your theory that we'd be better off without sexual reproduction! - To me the intimacy comes from both partners loving one another and choosing to be co-creators, together with God."
Adam and Eve were 'not' Co-Creators with God, 'in the beginning'.
Genesis1: 26 a. KJV. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:.."
Genesis 2: 22.a. "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman,.."
Co-creators, together with God? When did God/Us tell Adam and Eve Asexual Clones they were to Reproduce Children? Or tell any Body Birth Human, After the Fall to Share Co-creation?
What Heterosexual Human Couple, thinks about Sharing Co-creation with God, when they do the Sex Act? Most Heterosexuals think about Protection from Co-creation.
After Adam and Eve did the Sex Act:
Genesis 3:16a. "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;"
Genesis 3:19a: (To Adam)
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground;.."
Body Birth Humans Die, and their Atom Elements return to the 'ground', dirt and bones if buried in Concrete or Metal Caskets. Atom Elements, do not Die, and Do return to GODs Elements, Visible and Invisible
The 'Spirit/Soul' Elements, the ElectroMagnetic Force, is Invisible. When too many Elements get out of Balance, on populated Planets in a Solar System, their Sun Storehouse of Elements Dies/Novas.
Posted by: Dolores Lear | October 23, 2009 at 08:45 AM
Heterosexual Body Birth was the Original Sin of the Original High Tech Reproduced Perfect Human Clones.
The Clone Humans became Co-Creators with God/Us, but they Reproduce Defective Genetic and Physical Human Children Cain, Abel, Seth, Daughters, and all Defective Humans ever since. Every Human Inherits the Original Sin of Family Genetic and Physical Defects.
Generation Birth, Death, and Rebirth began, and still continues on Earth, even with our High Tech Knowledge of Reproducing the Human Fetus in the Lab, we put the 'Immaculate' Conception Fetus, in the Female Womb for Birth.
Humans do Clone Same Sex Animals.
There were Protests by Religious Humans, that Humans were trying to act like God, when Science wanted to reproduce Humans. Even High Tech Stem Cell Corrections is not accepted by Many Humans. Why?
With the Return of High Tech, Misbred Humans Misused their High Tech for Evil Toxic Pollution and Nuclear Bombs, to Kill Each Other and their Home Planet. Why? Am I my Brothers/Sisters Keeper?
With a Runaway Uncontrolled Reproduction of 7 Billion Humans, the Past 100 years, the Living Space for All Life has shrunk to where Humans have to take over the Land for Animals, and Humans are stacking up in high rise buildings.
So what has Co-Producing with Sex for Pleasure or for Reproduction, to do with God/Us Reproduction in a High Tech Womb 'in the beginning'?
Posted by: Dolores Lear | October 23, 2009 at 08:46 AM
The former minister who came to watch the documentary on Ardi last Saturday posted her writeup about it on her blog. We had a really good time at BlackDog discussing the movie and then at a bar in the same strip mall. Here is Dagney's blog - http://pastordagney.blogspot.com/2009/10/talk-to-me.html
New online database of Theoretical Physics lectures
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
Some new resources regarding quantum information and other areas of modern physics are now available online.
These include Prof. Raymond Laflamme of PI and IQC on "Harnessing the Quantum World" in which he shows how qubits of information can be manipulated. He also shares images that detail the potential computational horsepower that quantum computing may one day
Another talk features Anton Zeilinger, University of Vienna, on "From Einstein to Quantum Information" in which he recounts, in pictures, quantum teleportation experiments and how such techniques may benefit our communications technologies of the future.
Other presentations in this online series range well beyond quantum information and include Sir Roger Penrose, Oxford, on "Before the Big Bang" and Prof. Frank Wilczek, of MIT and Nobel Prize Laureate, on "Anticipating A New Golden Age".
Posted by: IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org | October 23, 2009 at 09:32 AM
Are you a "Republican for Rape?" - Sounds bizarre, right?
You may as well join the group of "Thought Crime" Republicans who opposed "hate crime" legislation just passed in Congress (I wrote about it yesterday)
In case you haven’t heard, a recent bill was introduced in the Senate prohibiting the Department of Defense from working with contractors “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” This bill was introduced in response to an incident where a woman who worked for Halliburton/KBR was gang raped and tortured, but can not sue the company because of a clause in her employment contract.
Not only are all 30 who voted against the bill Republican (though not all Republicans voted against the bill), but also they are all men.
I learnt about it from Dagney's blog (former minister here in KC)
Here is the latest new on the case - http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Republicans+for+rape
Posted by: IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org | October 23, 2009 at 09:35 AM
Bill's P.S. About K.C. Festival of Faiths.
"After race, religiously motivated attacks are the second most common form of hate crime in the world today. And yet, education in matters of religious diversity and toleration, both here at home and around the world, is remarkably deficient. Add to that, the vast majority of people engaged in interfaith work are not the younger generation but are those over fifty years old. Put it all together, and the consequences become a matter of profound concern."
High Tech Science the Past 100 years, does Change how Humans look at the Supernatural in Religion. Humans under 50 years of Age, were not raised as strictly in Religious supernaturalism, but more on Love of Jesus.
So training up a Child as to the Way they should go, does make a difference in a High Tech Science Society. And with more High Tech Knowledge, more Atheists result.
Where is the Love of God in their Killing Human Actions with Starving and Homeless Humans, Wars, Polluting our Planet with nondegradable Nuclear Waste, and Covering our Planet with Nuclear Bombs?
Where is the Religious Peace that passeth understanding? The Whole Planet is throbbing with Hate, Inequality, Haves, Havenots, War, and the Killing of Each Other and our Home Planet.
Why did Humans Start to be Co-Creators with God/Us, in our Human Image? Heterosexual Sex did start the Reproduction of Defective Humans, with the Result of Death of Each Other, and our Home Planet.
So will 'Festival of Faiths' made any difference as long as they Teach the Old Time Supernatural Religion, with Many Divisions, as to Who is the God/Us in Genesis, of Planet Earth in our Human Image?
How many Divisions and Even More of False Religions in the Process, are there? Why? Loss of High Tech Knowledge?
Is there more than One GOD, of the Universe Elements, and Planets?
Posted by: Dolores Lear | October 23, 2009 at 09:44 AM
"I will tell your right up front that I don't quite know what to make of the Vatican's recent announcement that it is going to create new structures that would welcome disaffected Anglicans to be Catholics while keeping some of their Anglican practices." -- Bill Tammeus
How about making of it exactly it appears to be: an effort by the Roman Catholic Church to reconcile differences, heal wounds, and slowly re-unite Churches that were once united.
As I've mentioned before, sin originates in asking, "How can I get my way and please myself?" instead of asking, "What is the right thing to do?" The original sin of the Roman Catholic Church was deciding that *their* Bishop needed to be Bishop over all other Bishops. That's the position of Pope, and it's an evil thing.
In order to justify having such a position of Pope, Roman Catholics made up claims of doctrinal infallibility for the one sitting in the seat of the Bishop at Rome. After all, if there would be one Bishop over all other Bishops, then they'd better have special 'powers' of infallibility! And, they starting pushing the idea of passing powers through Apostolic succession, coming from Peter. Naturally, the powers had to go with the position of Bishop at Rome, not with any one person. Otherwise a rogue Pope could defect and the Church would forever lose its position. The Papacy pulls its powers from the seat of Peter.
Ironically, doctrine was horribly corrupted by the Papacy, right from the beginning. Splits, perversion of salvation, the Crusades, and a celibate priesthood cause me to believe that the only thing new brought to religion by having a Pope has been evil and inhuman.
There will never be unity until the Papacy no longer exists. Roman Catholicism is in arrogant error.
Posted by: Just Thinking | October 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Corporations in this country have simply got to be forced out of politics. No more Corporate lobbying. No more Corporate political contributions. They've been a horrible corrupting force in our society. No, Corporations are NOT people, too. Of the Corporation, by the Corporation, and for the Corporation ... that's what we have right now.
Notice how Walmart and others are going to be exempted from health care legislation? That's just plain wrong. How in the world could we ever let such things happen in this country? Corporations tell us that their only concern must be bottom-line. "Otherwise the shareholders will sue us?" So, they admit that "the want of money is the root of all CORPORATE POLICY."
Look at what they've done to us in regards to China. They've shipped our jobs and intellectual property to China, all without any concern for human rights in China. So we've propped up the last vestige of what was a dying Communist system, where those who evangelize are executed. Russia is now looking at how to repair their system using China as a model.
We have simply got to get Corporations out of our political system. No ifs ands or buts. Or one day we'll all be subjects of a enslaving system of Corporate making. We'll all be working on Cheney gangs.
Unfettered Capitalism has become an excuse for greed-motivated evil by Corporate America. Freedom has been perverted in the name of short-sighted CEO gains. In the 1970's the CEOs of Fortunate 500 companies made 100 times the average workers' salary. Today that is 400 times. 300 jobs that have been lost in every one of those companies. And workers are the greedy ones? I don't think so. The lowest quartile of workers have seen their standard of living drop during the same time. The trend and the cause is obvious--"the want of money." Greed taken to evil levels.
Posted by: Just Thinking | October 23, 2009 at 11:40 AM
The above link tells about the covenantal relationship between an Episcopal and a Roman Catholic Church in our very own downtown Kansas City -- Grace and Holy Trinity Cathedral (Episcopal) and Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Roman Catholic).
Bill, I'm not sure how workable it always is to stay and work for change from within. I guess it depends on how much common-ground you still have with the members of your current church. I think I'd be seen as very divisive if I tried to stay and work for change in the Assembly of God Church I used to be a part of -- and probably even more divisive if I'd stayed in the Baptist (now Southern Baptist) congregation I grew up in. I'm not even sure but what I'd be asked to leave, or at the very least to keep silent about my views.
Being now a Universalist Christian who no longer believes that God created just two distinct heterosexual sexes -- I just feel it's more loving for me to move right along, though I have been communicating with some of my old friends about my theological changes.
It's possible that I'd stay if I'd been a longtime member of a church like yours, which seems to allow room for more diverse interpretations of Scripture. It just so happens that I was part of traditions that didn't allow for as much "wiggle room."
Adam, from yesterday, you were wondering what I meant by evolutionary theory? I am talking about Darwin's theory that we all started out from a common ancestor. If you need a more detailed definition, you can always go to wikipedia (just kidding). :)
Posted by: Susan | October 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Dolores, you wrote, "So what has Co-Producing with Sex for Pleasure or for Reproduction, to do with God/Us Reproduction in a High Tech Womb 'in the beginning'?"
Dolores, what does reproduction in a high tech womb have to do with love? Or with human touch, human warmth? Don't you think touch is important?
I'm sorry, but it just seems to me that your vision of a perfect world is rather cold and comfortless.
I understand that with the messiness of biological reproduction, there is unpredictableness. Children have minds of their own -- and, yes, we all have genetic imperfections and some of these cause severe problems. But we are getting better at preventing and treating these -- and, also, I think we're becoming a more compassionate society, more accepting of disabilities and other differences.
I realize this offends some people -- but I really believe one reason God allows human suffering is for us, as a human race, to grow in compassion as we respond to the needs and vulnerabilities of one another. This is something Joni Eareckson Tada wrote about (she's the woman who's been paralyzed from the neck down since age 17) -- the thought initially made her really angry.
But what it all boils down to is, we are not just here to please ourselves. We are here to learn to love (okay, this is just my opinion, but I think I am right) -- and not just to GIVE love, but also to RECEIVE it. So our lives, and our needs and vulnerabilites, are here for others to learn to love us and have patience with us.
I know this sounds rather crass coming from someone who has never been disabled or had a severe illness: As Joni Eareckson has shared, her disability also enables her to speak more forthrightly about God's purposes, because people tend to receive this stuff better from those who have suffered more.
Posted by: Susan | October 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Regarding the Pope's "invitation" to Anglicans to return to the Roman Catholic church, I would imagine that since the child abuse scandals of the last decade or so, the RC church is running out of money and priests !
Just this month another American diocese is filing for bankruptcy due to claims against it from victims of one of their pedophile priests.
Read all about it here:
Posted by: Red Biddy | October 23, 2009 at 01:20 PM
Susan, my question to you about what you meant by "evolutionary theory" referred to the view of evolutionary theory that all life has developed by a mindless process.
No, I don't accept that...and such has not been demonstrated. (By the way, Darwin did not even try to deal with the origin of life.)
Just so I have it straight, Susan, do you believe that all life can be explained by "evolutionary theory", in the sense of being a product of mindless forces?
(As to a common ancestor; Yes, I believe we all started from a common ancestor.)
Posted by: adam harrison | October 23, 2009 at 03:53 PM
Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson at the movies!
Move over Bill Mahrer!
Posted by: adam harrison | October 23, 2009 at 04:17 PM
I noticed funny thing about the Kansas City Freethinkers site.
They don't have any place on THEIR board for people to post comments!
I guess thats why they leech off Bills blog.
Posted by: adam harrison | October 23, 2009 at 04:27 PM
Dolores, what does reproduction in a high tech womb have to do with love? Or with human touch, human warmth? Don't you think touch is important? - I think we're becoming a more compassionate society, more accepting of disabilities and other differences."
Just the comments on this Blog, show no compassion for people different from them. And all the Starving and Homeless Humans shows no compassion or a loving touch. It was not possible with 1 Billion Humans to be Compassionate with Greedy Humans, and it is harder with 7 Billion Humans.
What is compassionate about the Human Touch, in all the Pollution, an Ultimate Weapon that is Killing our Planet?
What is compassionate about the Human Touch, when 9 countries have the Nuclear Bomb, the Ultimate Weapon that will Kill most Humans?
There is No Higher Love than the Ultimate Agape Celibate Love, that Male and Female Clones have on their Planets and in their Spaceships, with No Body Birth, sorrow, grief, and death for the Female to experience in giving Birth or raising Children.
What has Love Got To Do With Sex? Rape, Sodomy, Spouse and Child Abuse, and all the Unloved Lustful Human Acts is not a compassionate Society.
God/Us in Genesis, Humans in our Image, the Human Celibate Species have Total Agape Unselfish Love, not Temporary Passion, and Jesus' Celibate Male Agape Love for the Downtrodden, and Starving, is not Temporary Passion.
Body Birth Humans are constantly searching for this Agape Love, that cannot be fully realized in Defective Reproduced Heterosexual Birth.
But even then, Genesis shows Adam and Eve Equal Agape Love Clones, 'fell' to Body Birth Passion.
So I hope the Celibate Males in Revelation, Saved this Time from Earth, will Succeed this time, with their Female Clones on their Garden of Eden Planet.
God/Us, Celibate Male and Female Clones, have Succeeded in Uniting as One and have the Agape 'Bliss' of Eternal Physical Life on Planets and in Spaceships.
Posted by: Dolores Lear | October 23, 2009 at 04:45 PM
Adam, your comment "being a product of mindless forces" is a creationist's canard that is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. It is perfectly OK to take that position, but equally OK to take the opposite position as an atheist may take. Either statement is correct to support a philosophical position, but neither can be used to support a scientific position. The science of evolution is supported by neither.
As I have explained to my students, the atheist and theist will agree on science 'facts', but differ on the philosophical underpinnings of those facts. As an example, Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins both agree on the science of evolution, yet are on opposite sides philosophically. You seem to be conflating the two by accepting the scientific position of common descent, but only if there is some philosophical guiding force behind it.
Posted by: Harry | October 23, 2009 at 04:50 PM
Adam, I agree with you that evolution is about the origins of species -- it doesn't, and has never even claimed to, explain the origin of life itself.
It was interesting to see Chuck's and Just Thinking's later comments last night about whether the Big Bang was simple or complex. On the one hand, as Chuck says, the laws of physics are simple. On the other hand, it must be true as J.T. says, that " ... all complexity that exists today in physical laws existed at that (beginning) point in time."
I'm just not sure but what they may have been here in simple form -- but then the varieties of ways that they interacted may have led to the complexity. As Chuck says, "Complexity is usually derived (from) a multipicative repitition of very basic rules."
Yet I think J.T. and Chuck may actually be agreed on this. Because J.T. says that matter may have started out in simpler form -- but that the laws of physics are assumed to be unchanging, out of necessity -- "otherwise backward extrapolations would be void of any real meaning."
So does this mean that even scientists, and not just religious people, have to start out with some kinds of presuppositions?
Posted by: Susan | October 23, 2009 at 05:56 PM
SAM SINGLETON ATHEIST EVANGELIST
One man, two act comedy; PATRIARCHS AND PENISES!
Dec 2 2009--Westport Flea Market 7 PM.
Tickets will soon be available thru the website.
Posted by: IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org | October 23, 2009 at 06:50 PM
Harry, you are slipping in your own philosophical position...if you don't believe evolution is a product of mindless forces, then what conscious, intelligent, force are YOU talking about?
And when did I say that I was a creationist? Are you trying to use the atheist canard that anyone who believes God is involved is a creationist?
You may say you agree on the "facts", but you know good and well that your philosophy will affect what you judge to BE a fact.
So, I don't believe the atheists position is OK at all...they have yet to demonstrate that existence, life, and mind itself are the product of "mindless forces". If you can, you get the Nobel Prize! LOL!
And as I said, evolution doesn't even deal with the origin of life.
By the way, Susan, Chuck did not show that the laws of physics are "simple"...moreover, he did not explain the Big Bang. He doesn't know what it was...if he does he should publish that information and instantly become world famous... and even Stephen Hawking remarked that the laws of physics break down at that point.
Posted by: adam harrison | October 23, 2009 at 07:17 PM
Goldstein S.M.,AKA Adam, I wasn't talking about any intelligent forces, mindless or otherwise. That was your position, a philosophical one, not a scientific one. 'Science' has no way of testing for the presence of conscious, intelligent forces. They may or may not exist, but anyone is welcome to believe in them - or not. That belief doesn't change the 'facts' of science.
I re-read my note and nowhere did I see that I say you were a creationist. In fact, you will notice that I note you accept the scientific concept of common descent, certainly not a creationist position. I also did not see anywhere where I stated my philosophy, though I suppose you read that into my comments since I didn't seem to agree with you.
Going back to the philosophical term "mindless forces", just what do you mean by using this term, if my take is wrong.
Posted by: Harry | October 23, 2009 at 09:08 PM
You sure did call him a creationist, Harry. You said his comment was a creationists canard.
Sounds like you were calling him a creatonist to me.
Anyway, when you say intelligent forces may exist, and anyone is "welcome to believe in them" you are talking nonsense. In mainstream science, you are not welcome to believe in them...you will be ridiculed if you say you do.
And you know this, that is why you put the "facts" of science in qutoes. What you consider a fact is going to be affected by your philosphy.
Then you say you don't see anywhere were you state your philsophy. Trying to by coy, Harry? Is your philosophy a secret? Would it not be expedient, for your job perhaps, to say what your philosphy is?
Well, you state your philosphy clearly, you say that intelligent forces can not be used to support a scientific position.
That in itself is a philosophy. You have asserted in repeatedly, but you have not demonstrated it.
"Mindless forces" referes to those forces that are lacking in intelligence; and if you are trying to say that they can account for existence and life, you are making a statement that has not been demonstrated.
Posted by: Will Graham | October 24, 2009 at 12:24 AM