On Oct 4, 11:34*am, wf3h wrote:
chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition
of creationism:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...the-glad-scien...

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces
fierce resistance in some circles..."

And in some circles, scientists believe that Darwins "theories" need
revised...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20.../#previouspost

On 10/5/09 7:16 PM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 4, 11:34 am, wrote:
chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition
of creationism:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...the-glad-scien...

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces
fierce resistance in some circles..."

And in some circles, scientists believe that Darwins "theories" need
revised...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20.../#previouspost

And expanded, not intellectually reduced to creationism.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On 10/6/09 9:50 AM, Gene wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:34:02 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition
of creationism:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...d-scientist/1/


He'll probably suffer the fate of his predecessor:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-debate.html

These guys haven't figured out their job isn't to be scientists, but
to be PR folks at the will and pleasure of their "Holy Father."

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces
fierce resistance in some circles, ......

Using Charles Darwin's understanding of evolution to discuss modern
science is a lot like trying to explain electricity in the way
Benjamin Franklin understood it.


Darwin's theories, not surprisingly, have evolved and have been combined
and broadened. Here's a good place to start:

Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, by Julian Huxley.

Your analogy, by the way, is spot-on.





--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Oct 6, 8:50*am, Gene wrote:

Using Charles Darwin's understanding of evolution to discuss modern
science is a lot like trying to explain electricity in the way
Benjamin Franklin understood it.
--


Good point, Gene.

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:50:04 -0400, Gene
wrote:

These guys haven't figured out their job isn't to be scientists, but
to be PR folks at the will and pleasure of their "Holy Father."

Now that's a little harsh don't you think?

It's often said that Jesuits are the vanguard of progressive thinking
in the Church - in particular after the Restoration of 1814/15. While
they could be viewed as "Soldiers of Christ", it's also true that the
Jesuit order has been on the hairy edge of revisionist/reformative
thinking in terms not only of theology, but science and humanities.

The good Brother reflects that thinking - that faith and science can
coexist and each discipline can learn from the other.

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:55:48 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:01:21 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

Now that's a little harsh don't you think?

No. A bit cynical, perhaps, but imminently practical.

How long is a VATICAN astronomer going to be around aster making
statements such as the following:

"BELIEVING that God created the universe in six days is a form of
superstitious paganism."
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVa...perstition.htm

"the idea of papal infallibility had been a "PR disaster""
http://www.christian-forum.net/index...ded&pid=140501

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Consolmagno

No need to apoligize - you were just misinformed. :)