# Has the new Dark Age finally arrived? Catholic Church may condemn Evolution. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 9, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790 "2005-07-09T23:15:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/61 "2005-07-11T11:05:39Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What do you think “found in modern science” means? There is only one meaning for SCIENTIFIC evidence. “God can make a tree” is not evidence “found in modern science.” In fact, it’s not evidence at all. Evidence is something tangible or observable which can support an assertion. “Only God can make a tree” is simply a bare assertion with no support at all. It’s not _evidence_ for a conclusion, it IS a conclusion…and a rather vacant one at that. > > As to my accusation of “malicious” intent-- the cardinal basically accused scientists of being dishonest, and “unscientific” and of “avoiding” scientific evidence. When he says they come up with theories in order to “avoid overwhelming evidence found in modern science,” that’s a lie, it’s not a difference of opinion it’s FALSE. One more time \*there is _no evidence whatsoever for ID found in modern science._ Not “overwhelming” evidence, not _some_ evidence, not a _little bit_ of evidence. There is \*none. nothing. zero. There is nothing to “avoid.” For science, evidence should be something that is falsifiable. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/62 "2005-07-11T11:08:24Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > However, science has _every_ business to state unequivocally that _if_ life was designed, it was designed by a moron who didn’t care how much suffering it caused. Certainly the ostensible “designer”, if it exists, is utterly unworthy of worship! This, in your view, is an analysis worhty of science, eh? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/63 "2005-07-11T12:52:32Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > This paragraph makes no logical sense whatsoever. What about it that you didn’t understand? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/64 "2005-07-11T12:54:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This, in your view, is an analysis worhty of science, eh? I don’t understand what you are saying. Should all people who feel science needs to be defended do so in a passionless way? If not, how would you prefer that they defend the subject? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/65 "2005-07-11T12:59:31Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > However, science has _every_ business to state unequivocally that _if_ life was designed, it was designed by a moron who didn’t care how much suffering it caused. Certainly the ostensible “designer”, if it exists, is utterly unworthy of worship! Since you are not working with the knowledge God has, why do you think you know more than He. What we have here is the student trying to tell the teacher how to run the class. Just doesn’t work that way. Perhaps when we gain knowledge and wisdom we will understand the why’s. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/66 "2005-07-11T13:18:25Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > I don’t understand what you are saying. Should all people who feel science needs to be defended do so in a passionless way? If not, how would you prefer that they defend the subject? Complete _non sequitur_. **Bricker** questioned whether the moral judgments of **ambushed** ’s post were a proper field of inquiry for science. As a great many defenders of science and the scientific method have noted, repeatedly, on this board, science does not legitimately address morality. **Bricker** made no attack upon science. **Bricker** made no attack upon the defense of science (which is not under direct attack in this thread). Your question regarding the passion of defenders of science is irrelevant to that exchange. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/67 "2005-07-11T13:21:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Your question regarding the passion of defenders of science is irrelevant to that exchange. :shrug: Well, like I said, I didn’t understand what he was trying to say. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/68 "2005-07-11T13:35:15Z")
A little more of that honesty would take you far on this board. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/69 "2005-07-11T13:54:39Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > For science, evidence should be something that is falsifiable. I may be nit-picking here, but evidence is not falsifiable, theories and conjectures are. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/70 "2005-07-11T14:18:55Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Darwin studied for the ministry when young but was never a pastor. By his own account, he was an orthodox Anglican Christian as a young man, but gradually lost his belief in the Christian religion and eventually wound up a self-described Agnostic who clearly disbelieved in orthodox Christian dogma and professed no knowledge one way or the other about the existence of a Creator. It could well be that he studied to be a pastor but never became one. And it’s fair to say he was something like an agnostic when he grew old. My point was that he started out well within the tradition of religious types who at that time considered every subtle detail of the natural world they discovered to be further evidence of divine providence. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/71 "2005-07-11T14:27:37Z")
This is the most pointlessly over-reacting thread I have personally ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/72 "2005-07-11T15:26:42Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > What do you think “found in modern science” means? There is only one meaning for SCIENTIFIC evidence. “God can make a tree” is not evidence “found in modern science.” In fact, it’s not evidence at all. Evidence is something tangible or observable which can support an assertion. “Only God can make a tree” is simply a bare assertion with no support at all. It’s not _evidence_ for a conclusion, it IS a conclusion…and a rather vacant one at that. > > There is only one meaning for “scientific evidence”. But that’s not the phrase we’re talking about. He used a phrase that was IMO, _deliberately_ not “scientific evidence”. In fact, I couldn’t find that phrase in the entire article . I did find “reason” and “intellect” used a few times. And this is what I think he means when he speaks of evidence found in science > > You don’t not consider this evidence that there is a God, I don’t and it’s certainly not “scientific evidence”, but the Catholic church considers it evidence, in much the same way they conclude that the beauty of a tree is evidence that God made it. It’s also not “evidence found in science.” Science is a _method_. Evidence “found in science” means evidence that is found _by scientific method._ There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no evidence for ID found in science. There is no other kind of evidence for it either, when you get right down to it. You also ignored the part about how the cardinal smeared scoientists by calling them “unscientific” and accusing them of “avoiding overwhelming evidence” which does not exist. He’s a liar. That’s all there is to it. > [@Liberal](#): > > For science, evidence should be something that is falsifiable. Evidence is _how_ you falsify or confirm a hypothesis or theory. It isn’t falsifiable in itself. ID doesn’t even rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis because it proposes nothing falsifiable by observable evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/73 "2005-07-11T15:29:31Z")
By the way, this statement: > [@](#): > > The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason. Is simply an _opinion_. It is not “evidence” for anything, it’s just a baseless conclusion, completely undemonstrated in the history of science. ---
**Author:** ![Genghis\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/45deac/32.png) [@Genghis\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Genghis_Bob)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/74 "2005-07-11T16:04:11Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > What about it that you didn’t understand? This sentence doesn’t seem to go anywhere in the context of the paragraph: > [@](#): > > No sane person will point to the accidental randomness of the orbits of the planets, the reliability of gravity and many other “physical laws” of the Universe. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/75 "2005-07-11T17:18:39Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > What about it that you didn’t understand? He didn’t say he didn’t understand it, he said it made no logical sense. Basically, you have said: I can’t understand the complexity of the universe, therefore a supernatural being must have created it. Your conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. It’s what we call a _non sequitur_. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/76 "2005-07-11T17:24:02Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > By the way, as long as it’s relevant, all scientific evidence is completely admissable in court. Nonsense. For example, if you are accused of killing somebody and a cop comes barging into your house to collect forensic samples without authorization, the results will be perfectly relevant, quite scientific, and utterly inadmissible in court. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/77 "2005-07-11T17:40:27Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > So where does that leave us? The Church agrees that evolution occurs, but disagrees with Darwin and his intellectual progeny that evolution occurs randomly. Because, you see, if it’s all random, what does that tell us about the nature of a divine being? Too bad for the Church, then, that Darwin and his intellectual progeny _don’t_ (or didn’t, as the case may be…or have been…) put forth the notion that evolution – or, more correctly, the primary mechanism driving evolution – occurs randomly. Natural selection is a very much _non-random_ explanation for the diversity (and possibly even the very presence) of life. If anyone is arguing against evolution being a random, unguided process, they are arguing against strawmen. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/78 "2005-07-11T17:42:56Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > He didn’t say he didn’t understand it, he said it made no logical sense. > > Basically, you have said: I can’t understand the complexity of the universe, therefore a supernatural being must have created it. > > Your conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. It’s what we call a _non sequitur_. Just to show the **lekatt** s out there how limiting is even that failure to understand: Folks, it may be worse than that, if the multi-universe theories are correct, we may be the forgotten biological high school project of a junior God in the 11th dimensional universe, pray that the father of that god does not find us and toss us in the trash. [Sub]**Or eat us, I have to say that in my mind, it popped up an old cartoon that had a girl opening a refrigerator and screaming: “Oh no! Someone ate my biology experiment!” (Father in couch then looks up worried…)**[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/79 "2005-07-11T18:07:17Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > This is the most pointlessly over-reacting thread I have personally ever seen. What do you mean by THAT!!!???!!!???!!! ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790/80 "2005-07-11T19:53:12Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Nonsense. For example, if you are accused of killing somebody and a cop comes barging into your house to collect forensic samples without authorization, the results will be perfectly relevant, quite scientific, and utterly inadmissible in court. But that’s completely beside the point. It wouldn’t be inadmissable because it wasn’t probative, just because it was improperly attained. I was disputing the erroneous assertion that “not all scientific evidence is admissable in court” which was stated with the implication that not all scientific evidence is empirically _valid_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-new-dark-age-finally-arrived-catholic-church-may-condemn-evolution/311790.md?page=5)