The "damnable doctrine" of Charles Darwin

[Ryan]

what do you base modern evolutionary theory upon?

facts

empiricism

logic

I read a quote recently that states, "Darwin himself made the observation that

It doesn't matter what Darwin said. There are no authorities in science.

Here you take a post which I was a good faith response to another poster citing the views of well respected researchers. You edited all that out since you offer no sources or view points. Can you see it now how you are an unquestioning zealot that just seeks to distort and silence other view points?

If there are no authorities in science, at least provide some sources you respect and some of their stated points of view from which you have obtained "facts," "empiricism" and "logic." You have a computer, make something up. Now it seems you even want to silence Darwin if his views are perceived as a questioning threat. WOW

 

[Ryan]

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
—Biologist Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker.

"Copernicus made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist as well."
- Me

And I believe Dawkins would agree. You see, if you understood his point, it is that Darwin helped answer what had previously been a troubling question for those who questioned whether god existed. If one could not explain the origin of the various species, including man, using a naturalistic explanation, then it was more difficult to dismiss supernatural explanations. Similarly, if the Earth was the center of the solar system or the galaxy, it would be much more difficult to intellectually dismiss this as the product of chance. Darwin provided a naturalistic explanation of origins. Copernicus showed that we indeed are not at the center of the solar system or galaxy.

These, and many other men of science have provided us with knowledge to fill the gaps of ignorance where supernatural beliefs previously found purchase. Collectively, they have provided naturalistic explanations which provide the framework for intellectually accepting a universe without the need for supernatural intervention.

This does not mean that Heliocentrism is synonymouse with atheism or secular humanism (two different things). Likewise, it is a non sequitor to say that these non-theistic ideas necessarily follow from the Theory of Evolution.

I answered the question as posed to me. I gave the source which was asked.

I do not fully understand the quotation on the Catholic Cleric Copernicus assisting someone to be an athiest. Who is "Me" and who is being quoted?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Darwin's theory is neither damnable nor disproven. No one here has given any credible, worthy evidence of either point. Let's move on.

 

[N4mddissent]

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
—Biologist Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker.

"Copernicus made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist as well."
- Me

And I believe Dawkins would agree. You see, if you understood his point, it is that Darwin helped answer what had previously been a troubling question for those who questioned whether god existed. If one could not explain the origin of the various species, including man, using a naturalistic explanation, then it was more difficult to dismiss supernatural explanations. Similarly, if the Earth was the center of the solar system or the galaxy, it would be much more difficult to intellectually dismiss this as the product of chance. Darwin provided a naturalistic explanation of origins. Copernicus showed that we indeed are not at the center of the solar system or galaxy.

These, and many other men of science have provided us with knowledge to fill the gaps of ignorance where supernatural beliefs previously found purchase. Collectively, they have provided naturalistic explanations which provide the framework for intellectually accepting a universe without the need for supernatural intervention.

This does not mean that Heliocentrism is synonymouse with atheism or secular humanism (two different things). Likewise, it is a non sequitor to say that these non-theistic ideas necessarily follow from the Theory of Evolution.

I answered the question as posed to me. I gave the source which was asked.

I do not fully understand the quotation on the Catholic Cleric Copernicus assisting someone to be an athiest. Who is "Me" and who is being quoted?

The only way you would think the Dawkins quote is relevant is if you did not understand it. I tried to explain it. The Me is me. As long as my point is logical and from a rational perspective, it carries as much weight as Richard Dawkins. If I rationally proved Richard Dawkins was wrong on some issue, most non-believers would agree with me. Dawkins is subject to a lot of criticism at the moment for allowing an award bearing his name to be given to Bill Maher. We don't have "sacred cows".

Read the explanation of Dawkins' quote and tell me how it relates to your point. Copernicus provides a way to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist as well, as I explained.

 

[Ryan]

And when did secular humanism and darwinism become synonymous? It's like saying heliocentrism and protestantism are the same thing.

If you are directing that question to me then point out what statement of mine your question is based upon. Before you do that though, read the genesis of the exchange.

I did read the exchange. The first time secular humanism is mentioned is when you mention it in the post I quoted. Diuretic stated that Dawinism is a meaninless term. JB said the term Darwinist is an attempt to equate science with religion. Then you responded that secular humanism is a religion. Now, you also mentioned Scientology which had not been mentioned before and really doesn't fit into the conversation. I suppose you could have been replying with random thoughts, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming your comments were inaccurate rather than completely irrelevant.

Yeah, the first time secular humanism is used was by me and part of the SE belief system is evolution. And?

What you did not include was that a poster named something like "Fatality" stated that "Hitler was clearly a "Darwinist."

JB responded that that "Darwinist" was a meaningless term. Diurectic made some similar subsequent claim.

JB then stated in response to Diurectic JB that the term had other implications. "It's another pathetic attempt to claim that science is a religion."



I responded to inform that religion is a far greater category then most realize with the following;
Scientology is a religion. Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

Scientology was brought first in the exchange. So without any "benefit of the doubt' what do you base your first question upon? Just so I can try to understand you meaning or relevance, do you consider "Darwinist" a meaningless term?

 

[Ryan]

"Copernicus made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist as well."
- Me

And I believe Dawkins would agree. You see, if you understood his point, it is that Darwin helped answer what had previously been a troubling question for those who questioned whether god existed. If one could not explain the origin of the various species, including man, using a naturalistic explanation, then it was more difficult to dismiss supernatural explanations. Similarly, if the Earth was the center of the solar system or the galaxy, it would be much more difficult to intellectually dismiss this as the product of chance. Darwin provided a naturalistic explanation of origins. Copernicus showed that we indeed are not at the center of the solar system or galaxy.

These, and many other men of science have provided us with knowledge to fill the gaps of ignorance where supernatural beliefs previously found purchase. Collectively, they have provided naturalistic explanations which provide the framework for intellectually accepting a universe without the need for supernatural intervention.

This does not mean that Heliocentrism is synonymouse with atheism or secular humanism (two different things). Likewise, it is a non sequitor to say that these non-theistic ideas necessarily follow from the Theory of Evolution.

I answered the question as posed to me. I gave the source which was asked.

I do not fully understand the quotation on the Catholic Cleric Copernicus assisting someone to be an athiest. Who is "Me" and who is being quoted?

The only way you would think the Dawkins quote is relevant is if you did not understand it. I tried to explain it. The Me is me. As long as my point is logical and from a rational perspective, it carries as much weight as Richard Dawkins. If I rationally proved Richard Dawkins was wrong on some issue, most non-believers would agree with me. Dawkins is subject to a lot of criticism at the moment for allowing an award bearing his name to be given to Bill Maher. We don't have "sacred cows".

Read the explanation of Dawkins' quote and tell me how it relates to your point. Copernicus provides a way to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist as well, as I explained.

You do not understand my point. Go back to about the fourth word JB wrote where she asked me for a source. If you are an athiest then that is you business. I just wondered why the quotations and how it related to a Catholic Cleric Copernicus assiting someone to be an athiest. I understand the broad outline now and I am uninterested in the specifics.

 

[rdean]

It's another pathetic attempt to claim that science is a religion

Scientology is a religion. Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

And when did secular humanism and darwinism become synonymous? It's like saying heliocentrism and protestantism are the same thing.

No secular humanist believes in the "Theory of Magical Creation".

 

[rdean]

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

Amen to that sentiment.

That's why, despite the fact that I am a believer, I am mortified when some of my fellow believers insist that morality must come from GOD.

What these mistaken believers seem to be telling me, is that, sans God, they'd run roughshod over the earth as complete savages because they would't fear retribution from a just GOD.

Jesus!

Don't they realize is what they're really saying is that if there is no god there is no reason to be a good human being?


Can these self-proclaiming Christians really be so insane as to NEED the fear of retribution at the hand of God to keep them in line?

I have lost count of how many Christians have absolutely insisted to me that if God didn't exist they couldn't think of a single reason not to go on a looting/raping/murder spree because there were no ultimate consequences in the afterlife.

I continue to have an opinion of humanity that is not quite depressed enough to believe them. The are pretty obviously just lying their asses off to try to win an argument.

Of course, the willingness to blatantly lie in order to apparently serve the interests of a being that considers lying to be a mortal sin isn't exactly a wonderful alternative interpretation of their actions, at the very least it makes them incredible idiots... but it's better than them all being a bunch of amoral psychopaths kept in check only by the threat of drastic punishment if they follow their impulses.

Which is why we hope they never lose their faith.

 

[Ryan]

To all those who commented, the issue of whether or not "secular humanism" is a religion the issue had nothing to do with my views one way or the other. In 1957, the USSC ruled in favor of a secular humanist organization, the Washington Ethical Society, in , a tax exemption case. The ethical society won as the USSC ruled that secular humanism is a non-theistic religion (Washington Ethical Society v. DC). The 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins affirmed this ruling. Two USSC cases., not me.

The secular humanist organizations had long sought the status of a religion and finally got it. Years later "secular humanist" organizations reversed gears and do not always want to be considered a religion. The reason was because of the "no establishment" clause could also place restrictions on "secular humanism." There was another lower court case that the USSC refused to hear. Essentially, secular humanists seek both the tax exemption status but avoid the "no establishment." Any fair minded person can recognize the lack of ethics this requires.

As far as Scientology is concerned, I believe the IRS granted the tax exempt status. Probably because the USSC was afraid of the case.

Despite the definitions and the accusations of "old tactics" the truth is now before you...

And if tax exempt status from the IRS was the sole barometer to measure what is and is not a religion, you might have a point.

As it stands, even if some people try to create a religion called "seculiar humanism", so what? What does that have to do with the fact that evolutionary theory is among the most highly supported and established theories in science?

How does it change the fact that you have no scientifically valid alternative to offer in its place?

Did you read the rationale behind the case history I provided? Do you consider the early founders such as Julian Huxley view on secular humanism? Is secular humanism not "the religion without revelation" described by founding members? Do you take into consideration the early secular humanists made on the claim of "the new religion"? What barometers would you apply to all religions that are absent with SH?

As far as evolution is concerned my position is one of questioning. One of the issues that raises questions would be from the author of "The Neanderthal Enigma: Solving the Mystery of Modern Human Origins." James Shreeve makes the point that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon Man did not interbreed, they were incompatible a separate species. Adding credibility to his viewpoint is the fact the overlap in existence with Cro-Magnon predating Neanderthal in specific regions. Many legitimate questions are far from answered.

 

[Ryan]

Just to add a bit more to the understanding of SE, one of the first signers of the "Humanist Manifesto," John Dewey, described secular humanism as "our common faith." The manifesto contained the description of humanism as a religion. Humanist Julian Huxley, member of the British Eugenics Society described humanism as a "religion without revelation." For nearly 100 years Humanism was glowingly referred to as the "new religion" until the threat of the "no establishment" clause was realized.

 

[N4mddissent]

Yeah, the first time secular humanism is used was by me and part of the SE belief system is evolution. And?

Evolution is part of the Catholic belief system as well. If someone denied science or evolution is a religion and you responded, "Catholicism is a religion" then perhaps the non-sequitor nature would be more apparent.

I responded to inform that religion is a far greater category then most realize with the following;
Scientology is a religion. Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

But once again, if they are saying Darwinism is not a religion, then why are you talking about Secular Humanism and Scientology? Completely Irrelevant. I consider any mention of Secular Humanism as a religion irrelevant to the question of whether Darwinism is a religion.

The well respected naturalist, Charles Darwin, has influenced the world view of several generations with his theories of evolution through natural selection. Darwin is a particular favorite among the "secular humanists" who cite his theories as proof that Theism is a false belief system.

This is what the Dawkins quote is supposed to support? Wtf?

The problem is evolution deniers often try to paint the Theory of Evolution with an implicit sense that it is some doctrine formulated and created to support some atheistic agenda. This is not the case. Darwin wanted to join the clergy when he started his research. Over time, his theory developed on the basis of rational consideration of the evidence he collected. He struggled with the conclusion, but could not deny a conclusion based upon his honest reasoning.

Whether that theory is now incoporated into various religious/belief/philosophical systems like Secular Humanism or Catholicism, is not relevant to any criticism of the theory. And any criticism of the man, Charles Darwin, is not relevant to any criticism of the theory, making this entire thread academic.

And while I'm on the topic, why is it almost exclusively Evolution Deniers that use the term "Darwinist"? Many people respect Charles Darwin for his contributions to science, but that was the 19th century. Scientists and the scientifically literate understand that while he may be the father of the theory of evolution, they don't hold his views to be sacred in any way. He missed on quite a few points- understandable considering that the concept of the gene for transferring information wasn't even commonplace in his time.

I wouldn't mind be referred to as an Evolutionist, since I do accept the factual basis of Evolution. But calling those who accept evolution, "Darwinists" is simply an attempt to attach a specific label which they can then use to transfer aspersions and criticisms of the man, Charles Darwin, onto those who accept his theory of evolution. It's a neat trick when one is unable to attack the theory itself, and I'm afraid is the real purpose of the OP.

 

[Setarcos]

Scientology is a religion.

And?

Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

Do you they they worship the great Secular Human?

 

[Setarcos]

Just to add a bit more to the understanding of SE, one of the first signers of the "Humanist Manifesto," John Dewey, described secular humanism as "our common faith."

Look up:
quote mine
appeal to authority

 

[gcomeau]

And continuing on with the explanation of evidence. Sunni Man, I'll assume you're still reading along and will say something when we reach the part where you can point out the nonsense and pseudo science evolutionary theory is based on.



Alright… so we’ve covered radiometric dating and why it’s considered reliable, the geologic column and the fossil record conforming to overall evolutionary expectations, the existence of transitional sequences within the fossil record showing evidence of past evolutionary events, and the pattern of distribution of genetic characteristics among modern life that conforms to the pattern produced by a biological evolutionary process in which traits are inherited from common ancestry. We’ve covered that the fossil record also overlays that distribution to a high degree of accuracy with characteristics in inner groups having their first representations later in the fossil record and widely spread characteristics having representation further back in that record.

Next piece of evidence. Vestigial and other non-coding genetic characteristics.

Vestigial genetic sequences.

Looking at the nested hierarchy shown in the previous post we can see humans and chimps (along with the rest of the primates) are grouped inside a larger group of animals. Their grouping also indicates a recent evolutionary divergence from that group. This is corroborated by the fossil record. Now… the members of this larger group of animals are capable of synthesizing ascorbic acid, also known as vitamin C. Humans and primates are not. As our little evolutionary branch of the tree only recently diverged from the rest of the group, and since large scale gene deletions are extremely rare (usually a gene is disabled because of a disabling mutation… it is not deleted completely from the genetic code), if evolutionary theory is correct we should expect to still be able to find clear evidence of the genetic sequence responsible for the synthesis of ascorbic acid in humans and primates (even though we are not capable of such synthesis) and subsequently compare it to the functional sequence in other animals and determine what alteration made to it caused it to become non-functional. This is a prediction completely unique to evolutionary theory, relying entirely on the premise that we inherited our genetic material from an ancestral source we share in common with those other animals in the larger group.

This prediction was confirmed in the early 1990s with the identification of the L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidase genetic code in humans and primates. Subsequent analysis showed it had experienced a frame shift mutation that had caused it to become non-coding.

Let me summarize this again to ensure it is fully understood.

1. Humans and primates do not produce their own ascorbic acid. From simple direct observation there is NO reason to think they would have the genetic code required to do so.
2. The nested hierarchical structure humans and primates fit into within an evolutionary framework however indicates that they diverged from a wider group at a time when ascorbic acid synthesis was already present in the genome of the group, and thus that genetic information should have been inherited.
3. Since we do not produce ascorbic acid, and since it would be unusual to have an entire gene simply deleted in entirety from the genome, evolutionary theory and evolutionary theory alone predicts we should find vestigial genetic code for the production of ascorbic acid which was inherited from an earlier common ancestor in the human and primate genomes… and which has since been deactivated by mutation.
4. They looked for it. They found it. Deactivated by a frame shift mutation that wiped out the end of the sequence on that gene. Prediction confirmed.

Once again… I can’t stop someone from looking at this clear example of evidence of common evolutionary descent and declaring “it just looks that way because it was designed that way” but at this point, whether it’s impossible to disprove that statement or not, it would be beginning to get silly… proposing that the same non functional section of genetic code would be designed into humans and primates… and in such a way that it looked just like a functional piece of code in other animals that had undergone a mutation. If you want to design an organism that doesn’t synthesize its own ascorbic acid you sure as heck don’t need to give it most of the genetic code to do so only to make it not do so!

And this is hardly the only example of a vestigial genetic sequence that fit this pattern…. Olfactory receptor genes, RT6 protein genes, etc… the genetic code of all kind of organisms is packed with pseudogenes that used to code for something in an ancestor… still codes for that same function in related organisms, but has been disabled in one particular group by a crippling mutation while the bulk of the genetic code remains present.

Continuing on that line, there is also the matter of endogenous retroviral insertions.

Endogenous Retroviral Insertions

Retroviruses contain viral RNA, as opposed to the DNA in humans and other animals and plants… and they also contain a reverse transcriptase. What this means is that they have the ability to insert the complimentary DNA sequence of their own RNA genetic code into the genetic code of the host organism they infect. It’s how they reproduce. Example of a retrovirus: HIV.

Here’s how it works in a little more detail.

The virus infects a cell. It then releases the reverse transcriptase. The reverse transcriptase makes a copy of viral DNA from the viral RNA. The viral DNA then gets spliced into the DNA of the infected host cell, at a random location… so from now on every time that cell’s DNA is replicated the viral DNA gets replicated right along with it. In the meantime the viral DNA in the cell serves as the template for producing new copies of viral RNA. Now, while the initial insertion point of the viral DNA is random, in any subsequent copies made when the cell reproduces the exact same location of the viral DNA will be copied as well.

(Side note: The random nature of the retroviral insertion is one well known hurdle faced by researchers of genetic therapies, since if they attempt to engineer a retrovirus to deliver their developed therapy to their patient a random insertion could place it in the middle of DNA that was already coding for something else that was fairly important)

When a retrovirus infects a host’s reproductive system - and thus the copies of the host’s DNA which will be passed on to it’s offspring - it becomes heritable by the host organism’s offspring, passed onto them just like any gene would be. And again, the location of the viral DNA within the genetic code will be the same as in the parent organism the DNA was inherited from.

The human genetic code is huge. It’s over 3 billion base pairs long. The genetic codes of the other primates (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc&#8230 are similarly massive. The odds of a single retrovirus infecting two of these individual species independently and just happening through pure coincidence to randomly splice themselves into the exact same location in their DNA are, obviously, not good.

So if we were to find, for example, that an analysis of human and chimp DNA revealed a single identical retroviral genetic sequence at an identical location that would be extremely solid evidence that they had both inherited that genetic sequence from a common ancestor who was originally infected by the retrovirus… thus also inheriting it’s common location in their genome. Not only is this a similar type of evidence that is possible from analysis of other genetic information… but this information in particular is completely immune to being hand-waved away as being somehow due to “common design” of similar appearing animals or functions as IDers and creationists attempt (and I stress “attempt&#8221 to do with other findings. There is no rational way to argue that a viral infection was an element of the design of an organism.

So, in all of our studying of the genetic codes of humans, chimps, and other primates have we found a case of a retroviral insertion in an identical location in both humans and another primate? No…

We’ve found multiple cases.

The odds of finding a single example occurring by coincidence are mind bogglingly bad. The odds of finding multiple examples occurring by coincidence are exponentially worse. They defy description. And for the final nail in the coffin (as if we needed it), there’s the pattern we find these common insertions in.

So far (with the sequencing of the human and primate genomes still far from complete) the primate species we share the most common insertions with are chimps, which all other genetic evidence says are the most closely related primates to humans. We share the second most common insertions with gorillas… the second most closely related primates. Third and fourth most common insertions = orangutans and gibbons respectively… also the third and fourth most closely related according to the other genetic evidence. Fifth most = old world monkeys… sixth most = new world monkeys… fifth and sixth most closely related groups, respectively, according to the other genetic evidence.

A diagram of the pattern of insertions in question, courtesy of talk.origins:

Look familiar? It should. That's a textbook nested hierarchical genetic inheritance pattern.

The arrows show where the evidence indicates the original retroviral infection occurred. Again, it’s impossible to prevent a claim that this is the case “just because God made it that way”… but again, it’s getting silly when the alternative hypothesis to what has been presented is that God deliberately designed identical remnants of past genetic infections into different species in a nested hierarchical structure in just such a way that it would really really look like they evolved from common ancestry when they didn't and he's just trying to trick us or something for reasons that are totally unexplained.

Next section will follow after a suitable waiting period.

 

[Setarcos]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gcomeau again.

:|

 

[Ryan]

Scientology is a religion.

And?

Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

Do you they they worship the great Secular Human?

And nothing thats the fact.

In the USSC affirmed the US Court of Appeals ruling that SH was a religion. I do not know what exactly they worship.

 

[Diuretic]

Scientology is a religion.

And?

Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

Do you they they worship the great Secular Human?

And nothing thats the fact.

In the USSC affirmed the US Court of Appeals ruling that SH was a religion. I do not know what exactly they worship.

I suspect the Supreme Court was measuring the concept of secular humanism against some sort of legislative provision to see if there was a fit between "secular humanism" and the concept of "religion" as defined in the legislation. Perhaps it was a tax issue or something. I don't know. I do know that the Supreme Court can't define a concept for universal use. I might be using a fairly crude definition of religion but for me it requires at least one object of veneration, possibly with alleged supernatural origins.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Now it seems you even want to silence Darwin if his views are perceived as a questioning threat. WOW

No, you misinterpret his words and then twist your inaccuracies into something unrecognizable. If Darwin was a horrible person, but discovered the first antibiotics in the world and cured countless bacterial infections, the fact that he was a horrible person does in no way discredit the fact that antibiotics can kill bacteria.

Similarly, attacking ANY personal belief of Darwin in no way disproves or otherwise refutes his supported foundation on evolution.

Let me know if you still don't understand that.


btw, win:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/ame]

 

[Ryan]

Yeah, the first time secular humanism is used was by me and part of the SE belief system is evolution. And?

Evolution is part of the Catholic belief system as well. If someone denied science or evolution is a religion and you responded, "Catholicism is a religion" then perhaps the non-sequitor nature would be more apparent.

I responded to inform that religion is a far greater category then most realize with the following;
Scientology is a religion. Like it or not, "secular humanism" is a religion.

But once again, if they are saying Darwinism is not a religion, then why are you talking about Secular Humanism and Scientology? Completely Irrelevant. I consider any mention of Secular Humanism as a religion irrelevant to the question of whether Darwinism is a religion.

The well respected naturalist, Charles Darwin, has influenced the world view of several generations with his theories of evolution through natural selection. Darwin is a particular favorite among the "secular humanists" who cite his theories as proof that Theism is a false belief system.

This is what the Dawkins quote is supposed to support? Wtf?

The problem is evolution deniers often try to paint the Theory of Evolution with an implicit sense that it is some doctrine formulated and created to support some atheistic agenda. This is not the case. Darwin wanted to join the clergy when he started his research. Over time, his theory developed on the basis of rational consideration of the evidence he collected. He struggled with the conclusion, but could not deny a conclusion based upon his honest reasoning.

Whether that theory is now incoporated into various religious/belief/philosophical systems like Secular Humanism or Catholicism, is not relevant to any criticism of the theory. And any criticism of the man, Charles Darwin, is not relevant to any criticism of the theory, making this entire thread academic.

And while I'm on the topic, why is it almost exclusively Evolution Deniers that use the term "Darwinist"? Many people respect Charles Darwin for his contributions to science, but that was the 19th century. Scientists and the scientifically literate understand that while he may be the father of the theory of evolution, they don't hold his views to be sacred in any way. He missed on quite a few points- understandable considering that the concept of the gene for transferring information wasn't even commonplace in his time.

I wouldn't mind be referred to as an Evolutionist, since I do accept the factual basis of Evolution. But calling those who accept evolution, "Darwinists" is simply an attempt to attach a specific label which they can then use to transfer aspersions and criticisms of the man, Charles Darwin, onto those who accept his theory of evolution. It's a neat trick when one is unable to attack the theory itself, and I'm afraid is the real purpose of the OP.

Post #105 should have helped you better follow the exchange. Good job and finding the point I was called a "liar" on. As far as I am concerned Richard Dawkins assertion that, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" very much supports the point I was challenged. I do not really care whether you like it or not, if you want make the case that I am a also a "liar" in your opinion.

What is your source for stating that evolution is part of the Catholic belief system?

I do not have time for the rest of your post. Again, I refer you to my question of post #98 so I can understand the relevance of whatever point you are trying to make.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm pretty sure that Vatican II under Blessed John XXIII approved the concept of evolution.