I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Vatican conference to include Intelligent Design in a very limited way

Partially reversing a previous decision [1] [2] , organizers of a March 3-7 Vatican conference on evolution will include Intelligent Design in the conference but in an unreasonably limited way. A news article says,

The Vatican will include discussion of intelligent design in a conference marking the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," officials said Tuesday.

The announcement reverses a decision to exclude such discussion but officials said intelligent design would be treated only as a cultural phenomenon -- not as science or theology. . . .

. . . "The committee agreed to consider ID as a phenomenon of an ideological and cultural nature, thus worthy of a historic examination, but certainly not to be discussed on scientific, philosophical or theological grounds," said Saverio Forestiero, a conference organizer and professor of zoology at the University of Rome . . .
.
. . . Church teaching holds that Catholicism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily at odds. But the Vatican's position became somewhat confused in recent years, in part because of a 2005 New York Times op-ed piece penned by a close collaborator of Pope Benedict XVI, Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In the piece, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant." . . . . .

The conference is being hosted by Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, along with the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture and the University of Notre Dame in the U.S. state of Indiana.

The organizers of the Vatican conference are jumping to conclusions about Intelligent Design. And one of the organizers said that ID will not even be discussed on philosophical and theological grounds.
.

15 Comments:

Blogger Conor said...

That would be because it has no philosophical or theological merit.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:25:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Yes, I know. It only has scientific merit. Duh.

You stupid fathead, how can they even decide the issues of the scientific, philosophical, and theological merits of ID if they don't discuss those issues.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:13:00 PM  
Blogger Conor said...

Sorry, I did not mention that it was without scientific merit only because I thought that went without saying.

I would say that they could decide on the merits of ID by possibly looking at the arguments made for it by its proponents. I hardly see why their agenda need involve discussing them since the idea is not a new one and everything that has been said with regards to it does nothing but lower the level of discourse worldwide. Perhaps if this were a conference intended for very small children somebody might raise the point but I imagine the vatican might want to been seen as distancing themselves from ideas which only children would find inviting, or for that matter arguments which only children would find convincing.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 3:53:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> Sorry, I did not mention that it was without scientific merit only because I thought that went without saying. <<<<<

Here NOTHING goes without saying -- as you found out.

>>>>>> I would say that they could decide on the merits of ID by possibly looking at the arguments made for it by its proponents. I hardly see why their agenda need involve discussing them since the idea is not a new one and everything that has been said with regards to it does nothing but lower the level of discourse worldwide. <<<<<<<

Evolution is not a new idea, either, so why should the Vatican conference discuss evolution? In fact, evolution is a much older idea than the modern form of ID.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:15:00 PM  
Blogger Conor said...

Because evolution is an idea which DOES have scientific merit and IS a fertile ground for scientific research.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:54:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

But then why should the Vatican be interested in evolution? The Vatican is mainly concerned with theology and philosophy.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:05:00 PM  
Blogger Conor said...

You mean to tell the vatican what they should and should not be interested in?
I meant only about the age of an idea that ID has been done to death and is not considered a worthwhile topic if discussion by able minds. Unlike evolution it brings nothing to the table.
You wouldn't, I suppose, suggest that at a conference on astronomy they also discuss geocentric models of the solar system, after all "You stupid fathead, how can they even decide the issues of the scientific, philosophical, and theological merits of geocentrism if they don't discuss those issues."?
And I know I'm being unfair to geocentrism because after all those who developed those models did have the best interests knowledge and its persuit at heart.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:35:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> You mean to tell the vatican what they should and should not be interested in? <<<<<<

You lousy hypocrite, YOU are the one who first tried to tell the Vatican what they should and should not be interested in.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:46:00 PM  
Blogger Conor said...

Did I? Where?
I believe that what I did was expand upon the reasoning of what they have stated they do and will discuss.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:53:00 PM  
Blogger Conor said...

(I'm sorry I thought I replid to the last comment but my reply has not appeared yet, it is possible I neglect to hit submit or somesuch, if that wasn't the case and there has been some incidental delay I ask to moderator not to bother posting this reply which should just be a reiteration of the previous one otherwise here goes:)

Did I tell them what to discuss? Where?
I believe what I did was elaborate on the possible or probable reasoning behind what they have stated that they will discuss and how.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:28:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> I thought I replid to the last comment but my reply has not appeared yet <<<<<<<

Comments do not appear immediately because comment moderation is turned on -- it may sometimes take several hours for a comment to appear.

>>>>>> I ask to moderator not to bother posting this reply which should just be a reiteration of the previous one <<<<<<

I posted it anyway in order to give the above explanation.

>>>>> Did I tell them what to discuss? Where? <<<<<<

You said, "I hardly see why their agenda need involve discussing them (the merits of ID) since the idea is not a new one. . ."

So you are telling the Vatican that they should not discuss ID because YOU think that it is not worth discussing because it is not a "new" idea.

You know what BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton does with comments he doesn't like? In comparison, I am being very patient with you.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:03:00 PM  
Blogger Conor said...

On the contrary they have said that it will not be on their agenda and I agree with them as I hardly think it should be either, you are the one who condends that they should discuss it. I have said what they should discuss only insofar as I have disagreed with you and agreed with them. You on the other hand claim that they are mainly concerned with philosophy and theology and the implication being that they have no business with evolution.
Do I know what "BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton does with comments he doesn't like"? No I don't but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he deleted your comments because you called him a "fathead", and rightly so I would say.
And as regards your so called patience, am I supposed to be thankful that you haven't resorted to silencing dissent? I don't think I would be out of line in telling you or anybody who shared that sentiment to 'get bent'.
In your first reply to me you called me a "stupid fathead", now to me, and what do I know, that sounds like the sort of argument/fallacy that might be used by either a bully or an ignoramus, or for a person for whom that is their everyday manner of speaking to somebody I might just go with the label 'dick'.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:42:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

We don't even know what the Vatican officials really think -- maybe they really want to consider all aspects of intelligent design but are just being politically correct.

>>>>> I hardly see why their agenda need involve discussing them since the idea is not a new one and everything that has been said with regards to it does nothing but lower the level of discourse worldwide. <<<<<<

YOU have lowered the level of discourse on this blog, bozo. Unfortunately, unlike a lot of other bloggers, I don't have an army of supporters to respond to asinine comments and so I have to respond myself.

>>>>>> Do I know what "BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton does with comments he doesn't like"? No I don't but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he deleted your comments because you called him a "fathead", and rightly so I would say. <<<<<<

No, dunghill, he banned me permanently because he disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule.

Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:48:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Conor, I rejected your last comment because you violated the rule about lying about objective facts -- you said, "I bet he banned you bacause you called him a 'dunghill' and a 'bozo' too... "

I already said that Fatheaded Ed Brayton banned me before I called him any names.

You are just a lousy troll. Why don't you just go bother someone else -- I am not going to put up with your crap.

Friday, February 20, 2009 4:53:00 PM  
Blogger Conor said...

I thought the "I bet" indicated that it was mere speculation, I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't resort to childish name calling on his blog if it's a matter of form on your own. And I don't think your account of things counts as "objective fact", besides if what I said was somehow trollish surely you'd rather it be a matter of public record so that I can make a fool out of myself.

Saturday, February 21, 2009 3:19:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home