Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Just when you thought it was safe to ask questions again

Turns out there's another topic that leadeth unto damnation brewing over at CAEI.  Sigh.  It's beginning to look like there isn't much of a chance  unless you're a Comedy Central host, a non-terrorist Muslim, or hip atheist who likes Chesterton (and, of course, part of the Real Catholics Who Know).  Catholics (and we won't even get into Protestants, whose positive contributions to  the human story are dwindling  exponentially) who dare ask where science might be wrong about evolution, apparently are doing nothing less than flipping the middle finger to the Everlasting.  Funny how, so many years ago, it was shown on a certain blog just how broad was the tent that allowed for diverse opinions over a host of issues.  I don't know if it's gotten smaller, but it sure has changed the guest list as to who belongs.
"I am glad that you pointed out the very serious theological issue in which young-earth creationists and their ilk insinuate that the Creator is deceptive in the making of creation to appear old. It is also a separation of faith and reason, in that creation is not seen as intelligible, so we get into a whole can of worms about an arbitrary, fickle non-Logos God. Indeed, I think this is grave stuff, and should give us big reservations about a leader who endorses such a view."
Another topic that good Catholics can disagree about in good faith bites the dust.


  1. What's so annoying is, (as I keep pointing out) economics is... well in much the same boat. At some level there's as much evidence for it as "evolution"*.

    And yet... question evolution: you're an idiot protestant. Question economics: you're a wise, spiritual christian. (I was talking with a friend and he pointed out: "Socialism was the third way between capitalism and communism. Now distributionism is the third way between capitalism and socialism. I eagerly await the third way between distributionism and capitalism.")

    At the very least, I would accept acknowledgement that they have a double standard.

    And if anything, economics is FAR more relevant to being president than evolution.

    *In that, yes there is a wide range. Some things are so proven as to be the equal of a "round earth" and some things are so new, they're not quite proven yet.

  2. I have to admit I'm far less concerned about where a person stands on the latest scientific theories about evolution than I am about the latest economic or social theories that directly impact the widow and the orphan. In fact, I know it's quite possible that those who reject what is accepted by the majority are simply viewing themselves in the same way that others who stand outside the majority see themselves when it comes to other topics, like politics.

  3. Exactly. Though I've met many who knew what it was like to stand on the "unpopular" side of targets who, when they found themselves on the popular side of an issue for once, often treated the outsider (then) with more respect than others. And they always had my respect.

    However, I've never been able to stand the type who boldly proclaim themselves "rebels" when on the outside of an issue, and then claim that "the majority have spoken" when on the inside (yes, I'm looking at you, Hollywood). Majority or minority, by now there is enough in the toolbox for anyone to be "superior" no matter which side they are on. Amazing how unself-aware we can be as a species.


Let me know your thoughts