[analogue SPRINKLES]

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution | Herald Sun

Well I guess it is a step in the right direction.

[turtle777]

Well, actually, I think your topic title is a bit misleading. The better quote from that article would be:

"His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design."

I agree with your conclusion: it is a step in the right direction.

-t

[Sky Captain]

Well in 1994, the Catholic Chrurch did finally accept the Copernicun solar system.

[BRussell]

The Catholic church has long accepted evolution. Actually this pope's administration, or rather, people close to him, have made statements less accepting of evolution than those before him. Modern creationism is largely a Protestant American phenomenon.

[Dakarʒ]

Until this guy admits he's the devil or something, I'm really not interested anymore. Which probably says more about the relevance of the Catholic church now, than me.

[Graviton]

Edit: I bored myself with this post

[Graviton]

"But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God."

Evolution does not need a God for it to work. Neither does gravity, thermodynamics or cell division (or any scientific theory). Evolution is not a theory to "explain everything", It's a theory to explain the diversity of life on planet earth (through natural selection).

The Pope is such a dork.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, actually, I think your topic title is a bit misleading. The better quote from that article would be:

"His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design."

-t

Actually my topic is the title from the actual story which I didn't write.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah and that comment was clearly made by someone who doesn't understand what "intelligent design" is supposed to mean. It doesn't mean "what created evolution" or "what created the first cell," it means "what created the things which people think evolution created but which it really didn't because it's not real."

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Actually my topic is the title from the actual story which I didn't write.

You are right. THEIR topic is a bit misleading.

-t

[Kerrigan]

Evolution is a valid scientific theory, anyone who says otherwise probably has a poor grasp of the scientific method.

Historically, Islamic scholars and the Qur'an itself have supported the idea that life somehow came from inorganic materials like clay or water, and that at various points humans have been, biologically, more like animals such as apes.

There is no question that religion can co-exist with religious traditions, and it certainly has been a large part of Islam, some sects of Christianity, and other belief systems since its widespread adoption in the 19th century.

The "popular theory" of evolution is a much different story. This is a vague, unscientific theory held by uneducated atheists who think that evolution somehow explains existence. Evolution, to them, holds that all things evolve towards a higher level, that they somehow march towards a more perfect state.

This is not what evolution is. Evolution is not about progress. It is about change. Life forms change, they mutate, some survive, some die off. The real question is whether or not the theory of evolution, or let's just say the law of evolution, was put into place by a god, or has always been in existence.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

The Pope is such a dork.

I'll take that as a compliment.

As BRussell said, the Catholic Church has "admitted evidence for evolution" for quite some time now, the last Pope said much the same thing. Catholics also do not hold the bible to the same level of literal truth as some American Protestant flavors of Christianity, and do not believe the world is only 5,000 years old.

What Catholics do believe is that God was the Prime Mover in creation, and that the evolution of species is part of God's design for the world (because, well, everything in the world is.). This is much more reconcilable with Scientific Principles -- Scientists can go about figuring out How Things Got This Way, and leave it to the philosophers and theologians to figure out Why.

Intelligent Design is something different altogether; the notion that the world was put in place, fully formed with all the species, 5,000 years ago, and that any evidence of evolution is purely coincidental, because we (The ID proponents) believe it to be so. How and Why are all combined into one easy package, no additional thinking necessary.

As a Catholic myself, I actually consider the Church to be quite liberal in terms of respect for Scientific Principles,. (at least as of late, as Galileo may have had a different opinion back in the day). (Maybe it's just because the last Pope seemed to modernize the Church a bit ,and I have no experience with the way things were before that.). I just wish we didn't get our panties in such a wad over gay people, or the thought of actually having a priest who's married (or female, for that matter)....

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Scientists can go about figuring out How Things Got This Way, and leave it to the philosophers and theologians to figure out Why.

I've never been convinced by this argument.

Personally, I think natural selection answers the "Why?" question just fine, in as much as it answers why something like a human being (or bears, or apple trees, or cockroaches) could arise in a universe such as the one we find ourselves in.

I don't see any evidence of a thought process behind the natural world. This doesn't mean that there isn't one, it just means the theologians attempts to answer any questions about the universe are built on shaky ground (the presupposition that some giant intelligence is in charge). This can only be further aggravated by the fact that natural selection is a blind natural process, creating order without need for intelligence. A further "why?" question, past natural selection, may well be nonsensical. And even if it wasn't, there is no reason to suggest that a theologian would be better placed to answer it than a scientist.

All most of us can agree upon is that a natural world exists and it operates in a certain way. Most of us can also agree that science is our best tool for investigation in this regard. Any thing beyond that however is just wild speculation. Wild speculation that anybody in the world could make, with equal authority.

The Pope, or any theologian, knows no more about the existence of god, or what properties such a thing may have, than a professional boxer, your bank manager, or a 4 year old child.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

"But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God."

Evolution does not need a God for it to work. Neither does gravity, thermodynamics or cell division (or any scientific theory). Evolution is not a theory to "explain everything", It's a theory to explain the diversity of life on planet earth (through natural selection).

The Pope is such a dork.

I agree, the pope is a dork, not because he sees a role for God, but because he views God's role as being only the first mover, basically in the tradition of Newton.

I think that nothing would move in this universe without God's explicit will, that gravitation, cell division or whatever you can experience in this universe would not be working without God willing it and enabling it.

Scientists can do nothing but analyse with which laws and in what ways God operates this universe.

Any statement beyond that is selfish and prideful exaggeration, and the belief, that because God operates this universe in a way that can be analysed and that is open to a mathematical description and that basically and mostly doesn't change, would mean that the universe could function on its own without God is delusional at best.

Besides that machine-like operation of the universe through God's unchangeable will, there are and always have been the uncommon events, which are due to their irregularly occurring nature not analyseable by science, ie. the socalled miracles. In fact every move of the smallest particle is a miracle, but most humans are not able to appreciate everyday-miracles, they need special one-time-miracles to stand out of the rest.

Some of these one-time-miracles helped some of God's messengers to underline their truthfulness and mission.

Taliesin

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

All most of us can agree upon is that a natural world exists and it operates in a certain way. Most of us can also agree that science is our best tool for investigation in this regard. Any thing beyond that however is just wild speculation. Wild speculation that anybody in the world could make, with equal authority.

The Pope, or any theologian, knows no more about the existence of god, or what properties such a thing may have, than a professional boxer, your bank manager, or a 4 year old child.

You're 100% correct that "anything beyond that" is the stuff that Science can't explain. You contend that stuff is "wild speculation". But the Pope has faith that he has something more to go on. Faith, by definition, is belief that is not based on proof, and doesn't fit in nicely with Science, which is all about proof. What you'll find, though, is that instead of dressing up faith-as-science like the Intelligent Design people do, the Pope is quite willing to concede what parts of his worldview are based on science, and what parts are based on his faith. (Again, though, popes and the Catholic Church are much better in this regard than they used to be.)

The Pope gets his authority based on his faith, which not everybody shares. Since you don't share it, you are free to call it "wild speculation" and not be convinced by it if you wish. But keep in mind that to him and the people who share his faith, there's a little more behind it.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The "popular theory" of evolution is a much different story. This is a vague, unscientific theory held by uneducated atheists who think that evolution somehow explains existence. Evolution, to them, holds that all things evolve towards a higher level, that they somehow march towards a more perfect state.

Except that atheists are one of the most educated groups when it comes to evolution. I would agree that many of them get it wrong, but they are nowhere near as bad as the general population. Why target them?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

I've never been convinced by this argument.

Personally, I think natural selection answers the "Why?" question just fine, in as much as it answers why something like a human being (or bears, or apple trees, or cockroaches) could arise in a universe such as the one we find ourselves in.

I don't see any evidence of a thought process behind the natural world. This doesn't mean that there isn't one, it just means the theologians attempts to answer any questions about the universe are built on shaky ground (the presupposition that some giant intelligence is in charge). This can only be further aggravated by the fact that natural selection is a blind natural process, creating order without need for intelligence. A further "why?" question, past natural selection, may well be nonsensical. And even if it wasn't, there is no reason to suggest that a theologian would be better placed to answer it than a scientist.

All most of us can agree upon is that a natural world exists and it operates in a certain way. Most of us can also agree that science is our best tool for investigation in this regard. Any thing beyond that however is just wild speculation. Wild speculation that anybody in the world could make, with equal authority.

The Pope, or any theologian, knows no more about the existence of god, or what properties such a thing may have, than a professional boxer, your bank manager, or a 4 year old child.

Not only was this post quite insightful and a pleasure to read, but it may be the first time in history where bears, apple trees, cockroaches, a professional boxer, and a bank manager are all involved at the same time

Score for Gravitron!

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I agree, the pope is a dork, not because he sees a role for God, but because he views God's role as being only the first mover, basically in the tradition of Newton.

I think that nothing would move in this universe without God's explicit will, that gravitation, cell division or whatever you can experience in this universe would not be working without God willing it and enabling it.

Scientists can do nothing but analyse with which laws and in what ways God operates this universe.

Any statement beyond that is selfish and prideful exaggeration, and the belief, that because God operates this universe in a way that can be analysed and that is open to a mathematical description and that basically and mostly doesn't change, would mean that the universe could function on its own without God is delusional at best.

Besides that machine-like operation of the universe through God's unchangeable will, there are and always have been the uncommon events, which are due to their irregularly occurring nature not analyseable by science, ie. the socalled miracles. In fact every move of the smallest particle is a miracle, but most humans are not able to appreciate everyday-miracles, they need special one-time-miracles to stand out of the rest.

Some of these one-time-miracles helped some of God's messengers to underline their truthfulness and mission.

Taliesin

You are more than welcome to assert the existence of God (and believe in whatever you desire), but it is not necessary to do so to explain how natural selection works. That's my only real point here.

As for your "pridefull arrogance" comment. To assert knowledge of a gods existence, knowledge of how it operates and knowledge of what it wants from us, THAT is "pridefull arrogance".

Admitting ignorance of all those things is the very opposite.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You're 100% correct that "anything beyond that" is the stuff that Science can't explain. You contend that stuff is "wild speculation". But the Pope has faith that he has something more to go on. Faith, by definition, is belief that is not based on proof, and doesn't fit in nicely with Science, which is all about proof. What you'll find, though, is that instead of dressing up faith-as-science like the Intelligent Design people do, the Pope is quite willing to concede what parts of his worldview are based on science, and what parts are based on his faith. (Again, though, popes and the Catholic Church are much better in this regard than they used to be.)

The Pope gets his authority based on his faith, which not everybody shares. Since you don't share it, you are free to call it "wild speculation" and not be convinced by it if you wish. But keep in mind that to him and the people who share his faith, there's a little more behind it.

On the sliding scale of 'faith', those that do not let it interfere with science are on my favourite end. Faith is all about emotion and it must be emotionally comforting for some people to believe certain things, but when your faith is directly contradicted by reality then you would have to be particularly nuts to still continue with it. The Catholic position on this is indeed much more preferable to that of the anti-science crowd.

Not that I'm any fan of the Pope, but my other grievances with the papacy are probably best left for another time.

[Atomic Rooster]

The Popey also believes in invisible ghosts and endless pain and torture for sinners and non catholics but...GOD LOVES US!!!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

You are more than welcome to assert the existence of God (and believe in whatever you desire), but it is not necessary to do so to explain how natural selection works. That's my only real point here.

As for your "pridefull arrogance" comment. To assert knowledge of a gods existence, knowledge of how it operates and knowledge of what it wants from us, THAT is "pridefull arrogance".

Admitting ignorance of all those things is the very opposite.

Like I already said, I think God is necessary for even the movement of a single particle, not to speak of its existence in the first place, so consequentially natural selection as consisting of billions of interacting particles, is so much more in need of God.

Taliesin

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Scientists can do nothing but analyse with which laws and in what ways God operates this universe.

Any statement beyond that is selfish and prideful exaggeration, and the belief, that because God operates this universe in a way that can be analysed and that is open to a mathematical description and that basically and mostly doesn't change, would mean that the universe could function on its own without God is delusional at best.

I'm sorry. Here your statement is both selfish and prideful. "I know the truth and no one can claim otherwise".

See the irony?

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Like I already said, I think God is necessary for even the movement of a single particle,

Sounds like God likes busy work.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Except that atheists are one of the most educated groups when it comes to evolution. I would agree that many of them get it wrong, but they are nowhere near as bad as the general population. Why target them?

I can take a guess…

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I'm sorry. Here your statement is both selfish and prideful. "I know the truth and no one can claim otherwise".

See the irony?

No, I can see where you might see irony, but there is none.

As a religious person I have the freedom and right to make claims about the truth, even without conclusive proof, but scientists don't have that freedom. They can only analyse the physical world, that is already existing, finding laws and systems under which it operates, with no freedom nor right to make claims about why it operates that way or if anyone or anything is operating it that way or not...

For scientists crossing that line would mean to be selfish and prideful, arrogant and ignorant, as well as being incompetent, for me as a religious person, crossing that line is even desired as religions deal mostly with topics that cross the boundaries of the physical/material world.

Taliesin

[- - e r i k - -]

You have the freedom and right to delude yourself for sure, but to present your case with the arrogance that you present here is shameful for you and your religion.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You have the freedom and right to delude yourself for sure, but to present your case with the arrogance that you present here is shameful for you and your religion.

Coming from someone who dreams of a world without religion, I take it as a compliment.

Taliesin

[- - e r i k - -]

Taliesin - Deluded and proud!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Taliesin - Deluded and proud!

James Brown-tune: I'm black and I'm proud...

covered by me: I'm religious and I'm proud..


Seriously, your uncalled for personal attacks are childish to say the least.

Taliesin

[- - e r i k - -]

My apologies.

But that's what you get for being so unbelievably arrogant.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

As a religious person I have the freedom and right to make claims about the truth, even without conclusive proof, but scientists don't have that freedom.

They have just as much freedom to make up stories as you do. They choose not to exercise this freedom because it would be dishonest.

[besson3c]

I think God, as we think of him (i.e. a guy that created everything and answers our prayers) is a man-made invention used to fill in gaps of our lacking knowledge of the universe. We may never acquire this missing knowledge, but that doesn't mean that God occupies this gap.

I am actually rather spiritual. I'm content to believe in some supernatural aspect to our existence. I just don't think of this whatever the same way the Christians do. This thing may not resemble a man at all, it may have never walked the Earth as Jesus, etc.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

My apologies.

But that's what you get for being so unbelievably arrogant.

He simply believes in something that you don't. That's arrogance?

[Big Mac]

So is this a contradiction coming from the Vatican? And for Catholics, if there is such a contradiction, does its existence threaten your belief in Papal infallibility? As a religious man, I'm asking these questions from a purely intellectual standpoint and not as a jab at Catholicism.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think God, as we think of him (i.e. a guy that created everything and answers our prayers) is a man-made invention used to fill in gaps of our lacking knowledge of the universe. We may never acquire this missing knowledge, but that doesn't mean that God occupies this gap.

I am actually rather spiritual. I'm content to believe in some supernatural aspect to our existence. I just don't think of this whatever the same way the Christians do. This thing may not resemble a man at all, it may have never walked the Earth as Jesus, etc.

I believe God exists in that region beyond what our senses can tell us about the Universe. God is that missing knowledge. That's why, to me, there's never been any conflice between Science and Religion -- they answer different questions.

There can be conflicts between science and morality, but someone can consider themselves a moral person without being religious....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I believe God exists in that region beyond what our senses can tell us about the Universe. God is that missing knowledge. That's why, to me, there's never been any conflice between Science and Religion -- they answer different questions.

There can be conflicts between science and morality, but someone can consider themselves a moral person without being religious....

It sounds like we agree then. Whether God or Jesus is some dude with a robe and a sheppard's stick (whatever those are called) is pretty inconsequential anyway. However, I do think it is kind of silly to pray to God to score well on your upcoming test, or whatever, and when things don't work as you wanted simply say "God works in mysterious way". I don't believe in this sort of intervention in our daily lives. God is not our life safety net.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Except that atheists are one of the most educated groups when it comes to evolution. I would agree that many of them get it wrong, but they are nowhere near as bad as the general population. Why target them?

Well, I wasn't intending to target them. But there are those who look at evolution not just as a biological phenomenon, but also as a social, economic, and racial phenomenon. During the 19th and 20th centuries, this gave rise to the growth of race theory, ethnography, Social Darwinism, the perversion of anthropology for imperial purposes, etc.

Some of these patterns of thought are still with us today, though luckily they are not very common.

In general, though, I think a proper understanding of the scientific method is essential for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs/disbeliefs. One should, by their teenage years, be able to discern between valid results of scientific investigation (ie the theory of evolution), disputable hypotheses (global warming), and utterly invalid hypotheses (intelligent design, astrology, etc). On that basis, one should know that scientific investigation needs to be undertaken without political ends in sight. This is why I have such an issue with global warming, because there are many valid reasons as to why temperatures fluctuate, but whenever you bring them up, people want to silence you on the basis of your not embracing the hypothesis which is, at the moment, trendy and popular.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

That's why, to me, there's never been any conflice between Science and Religion -- they answer different questions.

That's the position SJ Gould takes and calls (pompously) nonoverlapping magisteria. I just don't think it's realistic for what almost everyone else defines as religion. Virtually all religious people believe that their religious beliefs have at least some implications for reality. Even if it doesn't reach the point of rejecting the foundation of the biological and earth sciences, as creationists do, most Christians at least believe that Jesus existed and that he was crucified, for example: Things that may or may not be factually true. And there's a ton more like that, that even the most moderate Christians believe. So what does that leave? Take away all the factual implications of religion, and what do you have? Just a kind of weak mysticism? I guess what I'm wondering is whether a religion that has no implications for factual reality could even legitimately be called a religion.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

and utterly invalid hypotheses (intelligent design, astrology, etc). . . .

Intelligent design has been utterly invalidated? Link?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Intelligent design has been utterly invalidated? Link?

Is this how you decide what is true and untrue? Links? If so...

Originally Posted by http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education

This is the view held by many other groups, like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, and other peer review groups.

Here are some other goods links if you want them.
JSTOR: Accessing JSTOR
Login - University of Chicago Quarterly Review of Biology, reviewed work: WHY INTELLIGENT DESIGN FAILS: A SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE OF THE NEW CREATIONISM.

[Big Mac]

What is the scientific means of proving or disproving evolution? I never see them listed. There is no proof for speciation, yet that belief is accepted as fact. There is no proof that time spontaneously adds new bits of functional genetic code, yet that belief is accepted as fact. There is no accounting for the Cambrian explosion within the framework of evolution, yet that fact is ignored. There is no explanation for startlingly discordant dating results that contradicts the hypothesis of evolution, yet those discordant findings are thrown out. I can tell you I place evolution in the category of utterly invalidated.

ID disturbs mainstream academia because it is a model that explicitly accepts the work of a higher power. And that's why mainstream academia seeks to disqualify it. The mainstream only wishes to accept models that explicitly reject a higher power.

[Kerrigan]

Are you sure about that? "I was relieved to see the authors disavow the view that scientific method, rather than the data, forces science to be naturalistic, for it is not true and would have rendered the defense question begging in this debate."

Another scientific journal, JSTOR: Accessing JSTOR, describes an instance of creationist work as a "tendentious essay not suitable for publication anywhere".

I'm not picking and choosing which scholarly publications to cite. They all have the same message: that creationism is unscientific. Some suggest that it ought to be relegated to the field of philosophy.

Big Mac, I ask you to show one proper scientific publication which demonstrates that molecules are irreducibly complex and convincingly refutes counter claims.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The "popular theory" of evolution is a much different story. This is a vague, unscientific theory held by uneducated atheists who think that evolution somehow explains existence. Evolution, to them, holds that all things evolve towards a higher level, that they somehow march towards a more perfect state.

I've never met an atheist/agnostic who believed that. The only times I've heard that belief expressed have been from creationists who think that this is what evolution is about because they saw the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey and thought it was a documentary.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I've never met an atheist/agnostic who believed that.

Good, I'm glad you don't know anyone like that. Nothing more to say here.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

What is the scientific means of proving or disproving evolution? I never see them listed. There is no proof for speciation, yet that belief is accepted as fact. There is no proof that time spontaneously adds new bits of functional genetic code, yet that belief is accepted as fact. There is no accounting for the Cambrian explosion within the framework of evolution, yet that fact is ignored. There is no explanation for startlingly discordant dating results that contradicts the hypothesis of evolution, yet those discordant findings are thrown out. I can tell you I place evolution in the category of utterly invalidated.

ID disturbs mainstream academia because it is a model that explicitly accepts the work of a higher power. And that's why mainstream academia seeks to disqualify it. The mainstream only wishes to accept models that explicitly reject a higher power.

If "the mainstream only wishes to accept models that explicitly reject a higher power" than why do mainstream scientists accept evolution, which most most certainly does not explicitly reject a higher power?

And why does not only the Catholic church accept biological evolution, but virtually all protestant churches with official views on the matter? And why do virtually all jewish religious organizations reject the scientific status of intelligent design and instead favor biological evolution? Maybe it's because they care about truth?

[Big Mac]

In response to Kerrigan, I'm telling you that those scientists in the mainstream who reject ID outright are disqualifying it unnecessarily because it doesn't fit with their world view, and I'm asking you as an individual to apply the same standard you apply to ID to evolutionism.

To put it another way, evolution states that all life on the planet is as a result of random chance variation and the natural selection of desirable traits therefrom.

Intelligent Design states that certain aspects of biology are so complex that those aspects point to an intelligent designer rather than chance.

Think about both of those claims objectively for a moment. Think about the awesome living planet you're on. Can you identify which hypothesis, if either, requires a greater leap of faith? And what makes you come to that conclusion?

I'm not saying ID is correct. I am, however, saying that it is a whole more logical in my opinion than is evolutionism.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

That's the position SJ Gould takes and calls (pompously) nonoverlapping magisteria. I just don't think it's realistic for what almost everyone else defines as religion. Virtually all religious people believe that their religious beliefs have at least some implications for reality. Even if it doesn't reach the point of rejecting the foundation of the biological and earth sciences, as creationists do, most Christians at least believe that Jesus existed and that he was crucified, for example: Things that may or may not be factually true. And there's a ton more like that, that even the most moderate Christians believe. So what does that leave? Take away all the factual implications of religion, and what do you have? Just a kind of weak mysticism? I guess what I'm wondering is whether a religion that has no implications for factual reality could even legitimately be called a religion.

I'm not saying that religion has no basis in fact, just that what makes religion an interesting topic to discuss are the things that are not supported by fact. For instance, there is some historical evidence from non-Christian sources that there was some guy named Jesus from Nazareth, and that he was put to death by Pilate. It's possible to admit these facts, and yet not admit that this individual was divine. It's the "mysticism" that makes the man noteworthy.

(BTW, thanks for the link, it was a really interesting essay (and not just because I agree with it 100%...)

[BRussell]

Wow Big Mac, I never had you pegged for a creationist. I know you're a conservative, and conservatism is associated with creationism, but you really don't have to go there. Biological evolution is the foundation of all the earth and life sciences: biology, geology, etc. To reject it is to go down a truly relativistic, nihilistic road. It makes me weep just a bit, it really does.

Or maybe you're just playing devil's advocate here. Tell me it's so?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

IAnd why do virtually all jewish religious organizations reject the scientific status of intelligent design and instead favor biological evolution? Maybe it's because they care about truth?

When you say biological evolution, do you mean the dominant model of evolution that rejects the possibility of a creator?

Either way, FYI, most all of Orthodox Judaism holds quite literally to the Genesis account.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

For instance, there is some historical evidence from non-Christian sources that there was some guy named Jesus from Nazareth, and that he was put to death by Pilate.

I don't wish to help the atheists out, but I have to ask what sources you're referring to. The only source that comes close to saying what you've said is an excerpt from Josephus that has conclusively refuted as an addition to the text by the Church.