NationStates Jolt Archive

From here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html)

From: By Martin Penner
November 07, 2005

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

So, quite a surprise. In one move the Vatican offers stronger support than ever for evolutionary theory (John Paul II only called it 'more than a hypothesis'), AND they reject ID. The Vatican enters the 21st century :)

That's rather old news, isn't it? I remember a number of threads about that a while back, a lot of non-Catholics seemed to be really surprised back then...

From here (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html)



So, quite a surprise. In one move the Vatican offers stronger support than ever for evolutionary theory (John Paul II only called it 'more than a hypothesis'), AND they reject ID. The Vatican enters the 21st century :)
Just proves that the Vatican isn't stupid

Gah. To say that the Vatican rejects ID is to say that the vatican either does not think there is/was a creator or that this creator is unintelligent. The term Intelligent Design orginally sprung up as a way of differentiating between the literal creationists and those who believe or even simply allow for some sort of creation. It is not a theory and anyone who says otherwise has no respect for the language they speak.

lol.

Go the Vatican!

I was told by a Christian fundamentalist friend that Catholics where all worshipers of Satan and that the next Pope would be the Leader of the following of the Anti Christ.

I told him to get fucked.
(I'm Atheist)

Gah. To say that the Vatican rejects ID is to say that the vatican either does not think there is/was a creator or that this creator is unintelligent. The term Intelligent Design orginally sprung up as a way of differentiating between the literal creationists and those who believe or even simply allow for some sort of creation. It is not a theory and anyone who says otherwise has no respect for the language they speak.
If the Vatican recognises evolution - and it would seem it does - then it does not recognise IDism.
One of the central points of all ID ideas, is that speication didn't & can't occur. Which directly contradicts current evolution theories.

Gah. To say that the Vatican rejects ID is to say that the vatican either does not think there is/was a creator or that this creator is unintelligent. The term Intelligent Design orginally sprung up as a way of differentiating between the literal creationists and those who believe or even simply allow for some sort of creation. It is not a theory and anyone who says otherwise has no respect for the language they speak.
I think the fact that the spokesperson said 'universe' as opposed to 'life' or something similar suggests that they are proposing that God created alll the processes by which life can come about and evolve, rather than the traditional creation views which focus more on God creating life, whether evolution is accepted or not.

Good news, about time that they did something right.

Now, if only we could get the christians on this side of the Atlantic to do the same...

Alright, go Caths, go Caths, it's your birthday, it's your birthday.

The bigger Chruch always wins and the Vatican isn't dumb.

As a Lasped Catholic, I love this decision.

Now, if only we could get the christians on this side of the Atlantic to do the same...
Ahahaha! Not a chance.

There was this study made a few years ago where people of various countries got polled on religious stuff. It concluded that America was quite a bit more fundamentalist than places like Iran, for example. I really, really wish I could find it, 'cos I've been laughing about that ever since :D

Its things like this that allow me to finally defend my position as a Catholic in the Science Field. I've believed in evolution all my life and have long said that Genesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, its just nice to know I'm not a loose cannon theologically...

Ahahaha! Not a chance.

There was this study made a few years ago where people of various countries got polled on religious stuff. It concluded that America was quite a bit more fundamentalist than places like Iran, for example. I really, really wish I could find it, 'cos I've been laughing about that ever since :D

Hey, I wouldn't doubt it for a second. I have to live in fundamentalist shit; I should know.

Now, if only we could get the christians on this side of the Atlantic to do the same...

Don't know if you've noticed, but there are plenty of Catholics on this side of the Atlantic. They stopped being a (mostly) European phenomenon some time around 1492.

:rolleyes:

As the "new" NationStates Vatican, Nova Vaticanae has always supported evolution...though we didn't support Gailieo back that time with the whole solar system thing... but we forgive him now!

On that fact, some people here in America still believe the sun revovles around us....

Don't know if you've noticed, but there are plenty of Catholics on this side of the Atlantic. They stopped being a (mostly) European phenomenon some time around 1492.

:rolleyes:

Urge... To kill... Rising...

*head explodes*

GAH, the stupidity on this forum annoys me to no end. NO END.

Its things like this that allow me to finally defend my position as a Catholic in the Science Field. I've believed in evolution all my life and have long said that Genesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, its just nice to know I'm not a loose cannon theologically...
Going a bit off-topic..

I hate to say this, but you've just improved my opinion of you with that comment. Not that I have any real opinion of you, but when a Christian on these forums state something like that, I'm instantly impressed...

Am I the only one who thinks that's utterly fucked up?

Yay, the Vatican always comes through! :p

It is not a theory and anyone who says otherwise has no respect for the language they speak.

Several months ago it was officially recognized as such

The Catholic Church already officially declared, way back in 1950, that evolution may be true.

Humani Generis, encyclical of Pope Pius XII (1950):

"36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."

Urge... To kill... Rising...

*head explodes*

GAH, the stupidity on this forum annoys me to no end. NO END.

Now, whose stupidity would that be?

The thread was about Catholics accepting evolution. You then said you wished that Christians on this side of the Atlantic would do the same, implying either:
1. Catholics are not Christians (they are), or
2. there are no Catholics on this side of the Atlantic (there are).

Now, you can admit that either you believed one of the two above falsehoods, or that your post was badly phrased. Your call.

:rolleyes:

Several months ago it was officially recognized as such
By whom, provide proof s'il vous plait.

Am I the only one who has noticed that they do not reject Intelligent Design? I think people are viewing "Intelligent Design" as if its the opposite of evolution when in reality all Intelligent Design says is that the universe was designed by an intelligent force. Catholics still believe this and the very quote on this post says it. Here it is in case you missed it:

the universe didn't make itself and had a creator

That quote is pure ID.

Now, whose stupidity would that be?

The thread was about Catholics accepting evolution. You then said you wished that Christians on this side of the Atlantic would do the same, implying either:
1. Catholics are not Christians (they are), or
2. there are no Catholics on this side of the Atlantic (there are).

Now, you can admit that either you believed one of the two above falsehoods, or that your post was badly phrased. Your call.

:rolleyes:

Ahem... It was strictly referring to the christians who vehemently dissociate themselves from the Catholic church. You know that anyway, but you'd rather be a dick.

Am I the only one who has noticed that they do not reject Intelligent Design? I think people are viewing "Intelligent Design" as if its the opposite of evolution when in reality all Intelligent Design says is that the universe was designed by an intelligent force. Catholics still believe this and the very quote on this post says it. Here it is in case you missed it:



That quote is pure ID.
If they accept the Theory of Evolution, which is science, then they reject the 'theory' of Intelligent Design, since it is not.

Going a bit off-topic..

I hate to say this, but you've just improved my opinion of you with that comment. Not that I have any real opinion of you, but when a Christian on these forums state something like that, I'm instantly impressed...

Yeah I don't normally own up that I'm a Christian. When there are so many of the "lets kill all the faggots, horrah God loves you!" brand of Christian on the forum, I prefer to just let my religious leanings stay private.

Small note: In what I have said above I am disagreeing with the comment in inverted commas, not in anyway encouraging that view.

Another small note: If more people were smarter I wouldn't need to have written the first small note.

Yet another small note: This note serves no logical purpose.

I think people are viewing "Intelligent Design" as if its the opposite of evolution when in reality all Intelligent Design says is that the universe was designed by an intelligent force.
Not true... This issue is much more nuanced than you seem to think. There are different views of the relation between God/Inteligent designer/creative force and nature. The "Intelligent force" in Catholic worldview is far less interventionalist in the development of the world than the "intelligent force" that education boards are suggesting for public schools in Ohio. Catholics are open to the fact that God set up the primitive universe, determined the laws of evolution, and then let evolution play out with little further involvement by God himself. But some ID proponents believe that God or a creative force was far more active in evolution, it is suggested that perhaps God personally and purposefully designed things like the eyeball or the bombardier beetle.

Just fo' the record, just because they support evolution doesn't mean they don't think some higher power had something to do with it. I mean, the universe had to be created SOMEHOW, and who is powerful enough to do that? God. And God may have created the Earth (just not in 7 days), and set forth the motion that became evolution. Evolution and God CAN go together, y'know.

Just fo' the record, just because they support evolution doesn't mean they don't think some higher power had something to do with it. I mean, the universe had to be created SOMEHOW, and who is powerful enough to do that? God. And God may have created the Earth (just not in 7 days), and set forth the motion that became evolution. Evolution and God CAN go together, y'know.

Interestingly I believe you can also translate "7 days" as "7 eras" from the original texts. I believe the days business came about with the introduction of the vulgate although I might be wrong on that.

Interestingly I believe you can also translate "7 days" as "7 eras" from the original texts. I believe the days business came about with the introduction of the vulgate although I might be wrong on that.

And 7 days are more marketable. 7 eras is a rather long time and well, us mortal humans have trouble grasping the concept.

But some ID proponents believe that God or a creative force was far more active in evolution, it is suggested that perhaps God personally and purposefully designed things like the eyeball or the bombardier beetle.

You hit the nail right on the head there. Some ID proponents believe God was very active in evolution. But others do not. You've basically repeated my point. ID is not the opposite of evolution and this person did not reject ID, in fact he spoke out in favor of it.

Ahem... It was strictly referring to the christians who vehemently dissociate themselves from the Catholic church. You know that anyway, but you'd rather be a dick.

So, you're admitting then that your original post was badly phrased? Fair enough. You could have done it with considerably more grace, though. For example:

Originally not posted by Potaria
I guess that was kind of badly phrased, wasn't it? I meant christians who vehemently dissociate themselves from the Catholic church, but I didn't make that clear. My bad.

Ever consider taking an anger management class?

:rolleyes:

Anyhow....Any Intelligent Design Supporters out there want to explain the dinosaurs please....??

So, you're admitting then that your original post was badly phrased? Fair enough. You could have done it with considerably more grace, though. For example:



Ever consider taking an anger management class?

:rolleyes:

1: No, I'm admitting that it was reasonably phrased, and you're just being a titwash for the hell of it.

2: Oh, excuse me. I must've "insulted" your religion. Yippee.

Anyhow....Any Intelligent Design Supporters out there want to explain the dinosaurs please....??

Err, God wanted to play with some scaly noisy animals?

Just fo' the record, just because they support evolution doesn't mean they don't think some higher power had something to do with it. I mean, the universe had to be created SOMEHOW, and who is powerful enough to do that? God. And God may have created the Earth (just not in 7 days), and set forth the motion that became evolution. Evolution and God CAN go together, y'know.
Which is exactly what the Vatican is saying

Err, God wanted to play with some scaly noisy animals?

class...why couldn't he still sell them in shops then, what with Xmas round the corner he could give his a son a great birthday present!!

Anyhow....Any Intelligent Design Supporters out there want to explain the dinosaurs please....??Err, God wanted to play with some scaly noisy animals?
And then got bored with them or they ate on the sabbath so he had to kill them all ;)

Anyhow....Any Intelligent Design Supporters out there want to explain the dinosaurs please....??

God wanted to read Jurassic Park.

How did he know if he created dinosaurs he'd get to read Jurassic Park? Because he's a frickin' god.

Its things like this that allow me to finally defend my position as a Catholic in the Science Field. I've believed in evolution all my life and have long said that Genesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, its just nice to know I'm not a loose cannon theologically...
Back in the early 50s, Pope Pius XII said that, as far as man's physical origins are concerned, evolution is not incompatible with the teachings of the church.

Well, good for Catholocism! I think they got burned well enough for that whole "the Earth is the center of the solar system" thing that they figured out it's not the end of the world, or their faith, to support scientific views of the world. There's plenty of spiritual issues that science can't even get close to answering.

1: No, I'm admitting that it was reasonably phrased, and you're just being a titwash for the hell of it.

2: Oh, excuse me. I must've "insulted" your religion. Yippee.

Since I think it's pretty clear by now to everyone except you which one of us is being reasonable and which one of us isn't, I'll just let this drop. There's no point in continuing, given that you've left the realm of rational argument and resorted to flames.

Have a nice day.

:rolleyes:

I have just one question:
How is it that the vatican can support evolution, and in the same breath acknowledge the fall of humanity and the existence of sin? If humanity evolved, then there was no fall of man, which kinda makes their whole religious message kind of pointless.

Actually its easy. God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, sets up everything, provides matter, energy and time, the chemical system as we know it and then leans back and watches the whole thing cook for a while. Of course he knows when everything is well done, so he sets his beer aside and turns the tv off, goes to the first exemplaries of Homo sapiens and says his speech. Just like fathers taking aside their sons and having "the talk" once they think the kid is old enough to grasp it.

I am curious to know how the Vatican came to this conclusion. One cannot say that one theory is true and the other false, unless they are subject to the same Criteria.

Accepting one over the other based on personal preference, is far more than a mere suspension of belief; it is not very scientific at all.

And then got bored with them or they ate on the sabbath so he had to kill them all
Actually, some Christians believe that God has a sense of humor and isn't all fire and brimstone, and while He was creating the earth, He purposely planted all the fossils on the planet just to decieve us and "have a good hearty laugh." Thus, the Earth started some 3000 years ago, because since God is omnipotent, He can even decive our ice-core dating, and various other tests we've done, to determine the planet's age. That God, with all His divine tomfoolery. :)

You hit the nail right on the head there. Some ID proponents believe God was very active in evolution. But others do not. You've basically repeated my point. ID is not the opposite of evolution and this person did not reject ID, in fact he spoke out in favor of it.

If only the TriLat Commission could bring this level of inteligent posting to our regional forum.

And in answer to My Dressing Gown:

You are an omnipotent god who loves his creations.
You have an idea to make some sentient beings who are naturally cuirisous about the world arround them (the better to make them appriechiate your work).
Do you:
A) Wave your hand and make the universe in an instant using powers your children will never understand.
B) Use a slower process allowing you to get the pleasure of creating a wide varity of life and watch it culminate into your final design. And then for that final design to reach back into their past and understand the mircle of life a little better?

Even if you choose A you've got to admit dinosaurs are cool! Rawr! "I don't think it see's us, OH GOD MY LEG!" Grr! Roar! Stomp!

****

For the record I'm a Satanist who thinks the idea of god is a whole load of bull hooky - but I dislike stupidity. The Church accepting Evolution does not mean they reget inteligent design, or the existants of a creater god. Remember this being is all knowing and all powerful. He knows what's going to happen and he controls the physical law. It's perfectly concievable that he designed evolution to do exactly what he wanted then went to take a nap. Or he could have interfere with Evalution ever second of every minuet of every day - he's all powerful, so he must have the super speed to do it.

The Vatican enters the 21st centuryYou mean the 19th century ;)

Just proves that the Vatican isn't stupidThe finally hired a decent PR guy with some brains and knowing that the world outside the vatican is moving forward :p

The Vatican enters the 21st century :)

Please. The Catholic church entered the same time as everyone else (well maybe slighly behind, but a head of a lot more people. But it all equals out right?).

lol.

Go the Vatican!

I was told by a Christian fundamentalist friend that Catholics where all worshipers of Satan and that the next Pope would be the Leader of the following of the Anti Christ.

I told him to get fucked.
(I'm Atheist)

Was he called Jack Chick?

Anyhow....Any Intelligent Design Supporters out there want to explain the dinosaurs please....??

God's fucking with us

(actually the above can be used as a reason for lots of other stuff.)

Well, good for Catholocism! I think they got burned well enough for that whole "the Earth is the center of the solar system" thing that they figured out it's not the end of the world, or their faith, to support scientific views of the world. There's plenty of spiritual issues that science can't even get close to answering.

That's completly different case. The Church objected to the heliocentric system on political grounds rather then on scientific grounds. It represented a threat to their temporal authority. (NB: I'm not trying to excuse their actions.) tbh, I don't think they [the Vatican] cared what revolved around what, they just saw it as a threat to there authority. But may be I'm just being cynical.

In this case, evolution presents no such challenge. The Church has never been particuarly pro-literal reading of the Bible, especially the Old Testement. Seeing the stories more as moral allegories rather then history.

A better parrellel to the heliocentric system would be sex education (especially in places where little or no alternative sex education exists). Alternatives present a threat to their authority both spiritual and temporal, which is why they are reacting so very medieval about the whole thing, and are unwilling to budge even if it will help stop a plague.


*waits for Grave 'n' Idle to prove this wrong*

I am curious to know how the Vatican came to this conclusion. One cannot say that one theory is true and the other false, unless they are subject to the same Criteria.

Accepting one over the other based on personal preference, is far more than a mere suspension of belief; it is not very scientific at all.

Well that's OK then, since ID isn't very scientific at all. (And also, both are being subjected to the same criteria. Whether or not they are scientific theories, ID is not since it starts with an untestafiable premise.)

Just for the record, the Catholic Church does not support anything related to ID or Creationism. LazyHippies & others, ID isn't the idea that God created the universe & the rules that govern it. ID specificly object to the notion of 'macro evolution', but recognise 'micro evolution'. And as such, the Catholic Church might as well have called ID a pile of shit with the statement in the OP.

ID is the refusal to accept the idea that various species evolved from eachother over time. And as such, it directly contradicts the main point of evolution theory.

ID is not science, have never been recognised as such, and never will. Creationism was once considered science, but so were magic & alchemy, and at roughly the same period in history.

ID & other Creationism ideas break the fundamental criteria for what can be considered science.

... Just wanted to clear that up.

Well then, I'll be expecting to hear Pat Robertson expressing a warning of God's wrath on Rome any day now.



Let's see, after promising hurricanes to Orlando, earthquakes to Hollywood, and tornados to Dover, I wonder what weather phenomenon he'll promise Italy...... smog with a 37% chance of a warm drizzle?

Well then, I'll be expecting to hear Pat Robertson expressing a warning of God's wrath on Rome any day now.



Let's see, after promising hurricanes to Orlando, earthquakes to Hollywood, and tornados to Dover, I wonder what weather phenomenon he'll promise Italy...... smog with a 37% chance of a warm drizzle?
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/051116/keefe.gif

<Snip>
And henceforth the French will know Americans as The Cowardly Gits Who Run From Their Food :p

Well that's OK then, since ID isn't very scientific at all. (And also, both are being subjected to the same criteria. Whether or not they are scientific theories, ID is not since it starts with an untestafiable premise.)

You are arguing in a circle: You suggest that the creation is a myth because the Bible is a myth, and the Bible is a myth because you believe it contains obvious mythical miracle stories like the creation. -Round and round we go!

What is science other than another Philosophy? Can Science test itself for truth? To say that every Philosophy is wrong simply because it starts with an untestifable premise is a killing blow to the realm of science itself; because it can't even offer such reassurance.

You are arguing in a circle: You suggest that the creation is a myth because the Bible is a myth, and the Bible is a myth because you believe it contains obvious mythical miracle stories like the creation. -Round and round we go!

No, I'm saying ID isn't scientific because it starts with a untestable premise.

What is science other than another Philosophy?

How about, a rigorously-tested, peer-reviewed, continually evolving system of knowledge about the way our world works.

The same cannot be said for philosophy (imo).

How about, a rigorously-tested, peer-reviewed, continually evolving system of knowledge about the way our world works.

The same cannot be said for philosophy (imo).

In a way it can. The only difference is that philosophy concentrates on rational thought where conclusions are made simply through thought and exchange of ideas, whilst science concentrates on empirical results and experimentation. After all, the early scientists weren't known as scientists to contemperories - they were called natural philosophers, and i'm not just talking the about Ancient Greeks - Newton was a natural philosopher.

This really isn't news. As it's been pointed out, the Church has never fully denied evolution, just athiest Darwinism that denies a Creator. "Intelligent Design" means a lot of things, including a God planning out/participating in evolution.

It's rather surprising what passes for news these days, particuarlly when it comes to the Church. Like this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47205) article, wherein Cardinal Poupard says what the Church has said for centuries about science and faith. St. Albert the Great was studying zoology, astronomy, and other sciences before they were even thought of as sciences. The Vatican has had an observatory since the Renaissance. The conflict between science and religion is largely an artificial one created by extreme materialists and extreme fundamentalists.

You are arguing in a circle: You suggest that the creation is a myth because the Bible is a myth, and the Bible is a myth because you believe it contains obvious mythical miracle stories like the creation. -Round and round we go!

What is science other than another Philosophy? Can Science test itself for truth? To say that every Philosophy is wrong simply because it starts with an untestifable premise is a killing blow to the realm of science itself; because it can't even offer such reassurance.
Philosophy is a broard term. Science is of course a kind of philosophy, but forsomething to be considered science, it has to fulfil certain criteria. You either already know this from your basic public education, or you can go look it up on wikipedia (ot the library or whatever).
Terminology, concepts & differences are public knowledge & easily available. Either wisen up, or admit that you're trying to obscure AC's argument.

Basically he said there's no reason to suspect the Bible isn't a perfectly ordinary book. His argument is as follows (or at least very similar):
Since we know humans write books, and that these books are often pure fantasy, it's reasonable to conclude the Bible is pure fantasy, if the things it describes either contradicts reality, are unobservable or otherwise not credible.
As it turns out, the only proof for the non-credible things related in the Bible, happens to be the Bible itself. As such, it's not reasonable to conclude the Bible is more than a work of fiction.

You seem to be the one engaged in logical fallacies here. Not AC.

To say that anything with an unfalsifiable premise can possibly be considered science, is indeed the killing blow to science. Undoubtedly you already know this, though. The unfalsifiable cannot be considered science. Science is clearly & easily defined, and unfalsifiable claims falls outside the field of science. Feel free to try and force a redefinition of mankinds greatest tool if you want. I doubt you'll have much luck. Greater fools have failed.

Edit: Saint Albert, there's no relation between Darwin's hypothesies & atheists. The former in no way relies on a god-less universe & the latter is in no way dependent on his, or any other particular set of, theories.

No, I'm saying ID isn't scientific because it starts with a untestable premise.Double standard. If someone says "Intelligent Design" to a materialist scientist, he demands evidence and calls the claim unscientific. When someone asks for proof of evolution that can be reproduced by experiment, which is the basis for any other scientific claim, the scientist tells them they're not looking at the big picture and should assume and accept small changes over a long period of time.

For the record, I do believe in evolution and intelligent design. I honestly don't see a conflict.

Double standard. If someone says "Intelligent Design" to a materialist scientist, he demands evidence and calls the claim unscientific. When someone asks for proof of evolution that can be reproduced by experiment, which is the basis for any other scientific claim, the scientist tells them they're not looking at the big picture and should assume and accept small changes over a long period of time.

For the record, I do believe in evolution and intelligent design. I honestly don't see a conflict.
... Back to school hon.

No, I'm saying ID isn't scientific because it starts with a untestable premise. -As does your brand of Empiricism.



How about, a rigorously-tested, peer-reviewed, continually evolving system of knowledge about the way our world works. Then pray tell, how did you 'scientifically' come to the conclusion that science was a reliable tool for observing all aspects of our world? Tell me how you 'scientifically' came to the conclusion that science was the sole arbiter of reality. -(I'm willing to bet it wasn't very scientific, at all.)


The same cannot be said for philosophy (imo). Then the same cannot be said for science, since it is a Philosophy.

-As does your brand of Empiricism.

Yo say that like it is a bad thing.

Then pray tell, how did you 'scientifically' come to the conclusion that science was a reliable tool for observing all aspects of our world? Tell me how you 'scientifically' came to the conclusion that science was the sole arbiter of reality. -(I'm willing to bet it wasn't very scientific, at all.)

I roled a dice.

Just popped in to say that God created Evolution, because he likes watching silly mortal fools like us argue. Done.

;)