What is your religion ?

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Ferran

I went to a Catholic school and took all the procedures as to be recognized by the Church. That, even if I was never a religious person myself, not even minimally. However, I have to admit that during the last years I developed certain bias towards Traditional Catholicism, and quite frankly, I would even see with horror a massive "Atheistization" or "Agnosticization" of my country, reason being that it's not hard to link the current degeneration of our society with the progressive loss of power of the Faith. Quite nonsensical you might think? Well, I just think religion was not made for me, but it doesn't mean I'm blind either.

My father is an atheist and has no time for religion.
However, he feels the same as you and thinks that even if religion is false that it at least brings order and stability to society and teaches good morales. Thus, even if he doesn’t believe in it then he grudgingly admits that it is a power for good.

[Breogan]

Originally Posted by Milesian

Yes, this seems a pretty good description of Deism

And the way Aristoteles defined God as well.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Breogan

And the way Aristoteles defined God as well.

A wise man for sure, limited only by his place in time

[Waarnemer]

this is exactly the charge laid against today's Darwinists.
They treat Darwinism as an unquestionable Holy of Holies, the highest Dogma, not because it is a proven scientific fact (because it isn't), but rather because it offers a possible model of existence without a God.
It appeals to their Atheism, not their love of science.

you claim changes in genetics as mutations and genetic drift aren't proved? what do you think about natural selection?

a dogma belongs to your worldview not to science

Darwin posited the theory of Macroevolution, that we descend from monkeys, from shrew-like creatures, from more primitive things from this or that all the way back to a single celled organism. In other words, for Darwin to be correct then one species has to mutate into a new one.
That has never been observed or verified.

In any case, the problem is not necessarily that Darwinism is wrong.
It is the refusal to even contemplate any other possible theories that is so very dangerous to science. This is the very dogmatic fundamentalism that Neo-Darwinists project onto any dissenters from their official orthodox view.

darwin didn't say we descend from monkeys, though we are related, neither did he come up with macroevolution. i wonder how you would explain the 98% amount of DNA we share with chimpanzees. anyway macroevolution is proved by whats called a universal genetic code, its a genealogical relatedness of all life, an other thing would be vestigial structures

Personally, I don't know any Christian who don't have doubts about God.
I do know many atheists who are 100% certain that there is no God, however.
I even used to be one myself. You can judge for yourself who are the more close-minded

i wasn't talking about that, i said christians wouldn't question gods decisions, simply of the idea of his wisdom being greater then humans

The essence of Darwinism is MACROevolution. That is what is being questioned. No-one is questioning Variation Within The Species.
In fact, that is what Neo-Darwinists often try to pass off as "proof" of Darwinism today.

i see, well like i said, the universal genetic code is proved through genetics. there is no general consensus in evolution that there wouldn't be a supernatural power. evolution explains how life evolved, it doesn't give or intend any purpose or meaning to life like religion does

What you have written above is a textbook example of what psychologists call "Projection"

The real fundamentalists are perhaps closer to home than you might like to think.

this is becoming quite stupid, fine you tell me what contradicts with evolution

Would this be a case of an appeal to celebrity, which would be classed as a form of argumentum ad verecundiam logical fallacy

bergman lies about his certification considering psychology, not only isn't that christian its neither a display of objectiveness

Originally Posted by yes about that

Professor Louis Bounore, former President of Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Zoological Museum; became Director of Research at the National Centre of Scientific Research in France. Bonoure wrote: " Evolution is a fairytale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
- Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17. (p. 5 of The Revised Quote Book)

Since the Revised Quote Book stated that "Prof. Bounoure" had served as the "Director of Research" at the "French National Centre of Scientific Research" I wrote the Center [The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique = The National Center for Scientific Research]. I asked them about the exact origin of the quotation and received the following reply, dated March 3, 1995

Dear Mr. Babinski,
The new director general of the CNRS [i.e., the NationalCenter for Scientific Research in France], Mr. Guy Aubert, has given me your letter of December 6, 1994, in which you requested several points of information concerning the quotations by French scientists, concerning the theory of evolution.
Here is the information I was able to gather:

The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the FrenchAcademy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.

The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."

As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as ["Director" nor was even] a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter. He expressed his ideas in his work. He is clearly "finalist" and against all contingent visions of evolution. ["Finalism" is a philosophical term related to a belief in ultimate purpose or design behind everything, including, in this case, the evolution of the cosmos and of life. - ED.] He bases his views, among other things, on the existence of elements that are pre-adapted for their future functions.

As far as Paul Lemoine is concerned, he is indeed a "famous French scientist" since he was the director of the National Museum of Natural History. In the Encyclopedie Francaise [French Encyclopedia, circa 1950s], volume 5, he wrote the following: "It results from this explanation that the theory of evolution is not exact ... Evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer believe, but which they uphold for the people. It is necessary to have the courage to state this if only so that men of a future generation may orient their research into a different direction." And this quotation often circulates among anti-evolutionist groups.
Paul Lemoine was an atheist, and he was against the theory of evolution because he felt it was not a good explanation of the origin of living beings and by showing its limits risked to discredit materialism. Although this point was not very clear we believe that when he spoke of "the theory of evolution" he was actually addressing the explanation of specifically [how] evolution [occurred] and not the [more general idea] of evolution itself.

The problem [of the origin of the quotation] apparently stems from the confusion in the discourse of these three scientists between the fact of evolution and the explanation of this fact. None were creationists but they all felt that the explanations given for the understanding of evolution were insufficient, even totally inexact.
This is the information that I am able to give you. if you would like to have more details, you could write to Jean Staune, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine, 1 rue Rene Panhard - 75013 Paris. This institute is associated with our own: The National Center of Scientific Research.

Very truly yours,
Marie-Antoinette de Lumley

Professor Albert Fleishman, Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, Earlangen University, Germany. He stated :"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of imagination."

if you could give me a link on who he was/is, when or where he lived and when and where he said it, on google i only got creationists with fleismans short quotes, so wouldn't you think notable is a huge term?

[Erasmus]

Originally Posted by Ferran

and quite frankly, I would even see with horror a massive "Atheistization" or "Agnosticization" of my country, reason being that it's not hard to link the current degeneration of our society with the progressive loss of power of the Faith.

You are still Catholic, you have a crisis of Faith, nothing more.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

i wasn't talking about that, i said christians wouldn't question gods decisions, simply of the idea of his wisdom being greater then humans

You are far from the realms of reality.. you should spend sometime among Gaels or Iberians.

[Waarnemer]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You are far from the realms of reality.. you should spend sometime among Gaels or Iberians.

and you should read the bible

[Sergius]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You are far from the realms of reality.. you should spend sometime among Gaels or Iberians.

Party at Mynydd's house!

[Ferran]

Originally Posted by Erasmus

You are still Catholic, you have a crisis of Faith, nothing more.

Nah, I'm just a little bit lazy... way too many sins to confess. j/k

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

and you should read the bible

I was going to point you to that as your first mistake.

You use a too inclusive idea of Christianism, I'm afraid.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

and you should read the bible

It's one thing to read it, and another to understand it

Anyway, I will address your earlier post later when I have time