Thinkquote of the day: Difference that new media make

I'm not Catholic, but I do appreciate Pope Benedict XVI's remarks here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605188.htm EXCERPT: The pope's main point, developed in an academic style, was that in the Western world the growing separation between faith and reason has resulted in a "dangerous state of affairs for humanity," in which society tries to construct a system of ethics without taking religion seriously and individuals try to make moral choices based solely on the subjective conscience. He said this was partly the result of a long process of "de-Hellenization" of Christian theology, in stages marked by an overemphasis on Scripture, a reduction of the Gospel to a "humanitarian moral message" and the creation of a gulf between theology and scientific empiricism. The pope said his broad-brush "critique of modern reason" did not aim to turn back the clock or ignore the progress made and the new possibilities opened for humanity. But the church also sees dangers, he said, and believes they can be overcome "only if reason and faith come together in a new way." When the West invites others to a "dialogue of cultures," it should do so with the understanding that religion is an essential part of its own culture, he said. But in fact, he said, it is widely held in the Western world that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that religion is a purely subjective experience. "The world's most profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions," he said. The pope said the West needs to recover the rightful place of philosophy and theology, so that it can say -- like the Byzantine emperor who debated the Muslim scholar -- that "not to act reasonably ... is contrary to the nature of God." The Vatican underlined the academic character of the pope's address by noting on the text handed out to journalists that a later version would be issued, complete with footnotes. P. Phillips

Sometimes it seems that the only place Darwinism doesn't fail is in the peer-reviewed literature. Which, conversely, is the place ID has the most trouble. Strangelove

"Systems that are declining in importance are usually passively ignored for a long time before anyone proposes to actually retire them." Yes, people begin to sense when they are being fed a continuous diet of propoganda and indoctrination. They also see the penalties for speaking out. So they say little and go their way. And eventually some brave souls begin to stand up and take the heat. Sooner or later others join them, and the tottering edifice comes tumbling down. We have certainly seen the lifecycle of failed idealogies in the past, and we are seeing it once more. Ekstasis

O'leary, You state in your post that, "pronouncements from on high that there are no reasonable objections are not so much contested as merely ignored." Such a statement paints those supporting the theory of evolutionary biology as using appeals to authority to establish their position. However, the very of nature of science eliminates appeals to authority as valid arguments for or against an explanation of a natural phenomena. What is interesting is that in your posts here at UD, you constantly are using appeals to authority to persuade your audience. Looks like you're barking up the wrong tree. hooligans

Darwinists profess ongoing amazement that the public does not just gasp and obey when Darwin lobbies huff that there are no reasonable, science-based objections to Darwinism. And one thing is that can't be over-emphasized is that it is a conversation. The Darwinists have the same access to the new media as anybody else. It's just that their arguments fail (and they get mad and start calling names.) tribune7