packsaddle

Littlebillie, I think a better term than 'anti-gay' is 'homophobic' which I think better applies to BSA because it implies more fear than hatred (it still is prejudicial). BSA only excludes or rejects homosexuals that are not willing to lie about themselves. This policy is not so 'anti-gay' as it is 'anti-truth', is more about appearance than about honesty. The policy is not particularly BRAVE. Rooster, You must already know about the numerous denominations that accept homosexuals. Would you really have us adhere strictly to all the laws set forth in Leviticus (Vayikra)? I, for one, am not willing to give up pork barbecue. I like oysters too, and clams. The Italian in me likes squid and octopus. I poke fun at others who don't eat these things and I laugh along with them if they try to beat me with the Torah. I guess I engage in an abomination. But I lose more sleep from indigestion than from guilt.

Rooster, some of my guys are interested in this also. I would like to hear about your trip to learn from your experience and plan one for our unit. I have done trips like this solo but not with the boys.

ScoutParent mentioned the twin studies and it is true that twins have been extensively studied for nature vs nurture insights as well as other interesting comparisons. The specific study mentioned is found as: A genetic study of male sexual orientation, Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991. The results of comparisons of monozygotic (identical) twin males showed that where one was known to be homosexual, approximately 52% of the brothers were also homosexual. ScoutParent did not mention that for the associated study of dizygotic (fraternal) twins, where one was known to be homosexual, approximately 22% of the brothers were also homosexual. Even the 22% frequency was significantly greater than the background rate of occurrence of homosexuality in the population. The 52% and 22% figures are generally accepted as evidence for a genetic role (though not the sole determinant). However, the studies only employed 110 pairs of twins. Later studies with females showed comparable results and a more recent study using 5000 participants (1800 of which were matched pairs) essentially confirmed the results of the first study. ScoutParent makes a good point, however, in that such studies indicate that homosexuality is not simply genetic, but is is clear that there is a genetic component that is not yet understood. One of the weaknesses is that there were only two clones (twins) in each comparison. My point is that a larger number of monozygotic clones will allow further elaboration of factors outside genetics that influence all sorts of expression, homosexuality included. My sympathies to Harvey Mudd, compliments to Stella. Pfann, if I pick a lottery number, you will have to explain just what 'opposite' means in that case. Besides I've already tried the single and double reverse tricks and I conclude that a higher force has determined that I should not engage in such behavior, at least not to expect a win.

"Smart money says God was omniscient enough to foresee it!" Thanks PFANN, should I add gambling to my list? I personally try to avoid wagers(maybe because I tend to pick losers).

One more thing in response to an earlier post... in addition to the current BSA blacklist (that I don't agree with completely), I do believe that persons who have drug or alcohol problems or who use tobacco products should be ejected from BSA leadership because they are poor role models for the boys. Also anyone who is a felon or has a history of domestic violence. Not, of course, to necessarily equate the judiciary with the above.

Wow! Ok, first, (and not necessarily to defend the Raelians) the previous characterization of their group is not too far off from one that could be made about Joseph Smith and the Mormons. I don't think the Raelians are trying to harm anyone so I don't judge them too harshly except for the stupidity of following someone who makes some outrageous claim (I admit this may be unfair). Someone please tell me the religious group that hasn't been labeled as a cult at one time or another by someone who was in disagreement with that religion. (sorry, I don't intend to play the role of Merlin here) Second, I agree that the statement could have been made by some Nazi scientist, or any of the numerous other past persons and movements attempting eugenics in this country as well. But until now, we never actually HAD the ability to carry out the experiment to examine nature vs nurture (and perhaps shorten forums such as this). I merely observe that, having abdicated our control over the numerous biotechnologies (handing them over to industry with free rein, actually) we ARE going to see the outcome of their application. Market forces alone will decide the ultimate directions for better or worse (everyone happy with this?) One of the results will be an opportunity to address the question of nature vs nurture. I don't necessarily endorse these results as good or as bad, although different applications will certainly supply us with both qualities eventually (although cloning isn't addressed in the Bible, who could have been omniscient enough to forsee that?). I merely state that it will be interesting, yes, perhaps as in the Chinese curse. But it is unstoppable and I doubt that many of us, at this time, would want to turn the clock back even if we could.

kwc57, The KKK (one label of which is the 'Christian Knights of the KKK') is not chartered by congress, also an important distinction. I agree with an earlier post that this topic is tired...but soon we may have the means for better answers to some of the questions regarding nature vs nurture. Assuming that the religious group promoting human cloning is successful (and especially if China gets into the vanity cloning business), we will have the first extensive group of genetically identical persons for tests of all sorts of hypotheses. The results will be interesting.

Hello Folks, I see the inevitable has happened and the topic has turned to science vs. religion. As a diversion, I offer the following to remind us how lucky we are to be able to invest time in such discussions. A Thanksgiving story from Costa Rica: My friend from Costa Rica works in the Ministry of Education. We had visited schools with him for much of the week and he invited me and my companion visitor to his home for dinner one evening. Although he was a little hesitant, he really wanted us to meet his family so we graciously accepted the invitation. His home was an hour drive from San Jose (about 30 miles) and located way up on a mountainside. We arrived at his house at sundown. The house was nestled into the hillside right beside the narrow road. In the distance across the mountains, clouds bathed the forests in the evening light, mists just beginning to creep in from the heights. At the far distant edge of the earth, across the hills and forests and floating like an apparition in a dream, was the Pacific Ocean. His home was very small, three tiny bedrooms, a tiny kitchen, and a little living room. The furnishings were modest, even on a Tican scale. The only photos were of his three children as infants and toddlers. The middle girl had her first communion the weekend before and they had 4 photos of that as well. His family was lovely. The oldest girl (who may visit with us this coming year sometime) spoke a little English...the next younger daughter was just learning. My friend announced that he would purchase our meal locally, to save time, rather than prepare it. We agreed and he left to make the purchase. He returned shortly with the food and we gathered around his small table for the meal. My companion (a Catholic) blessed the food in Spanish. We ate. The meal consisted of a small, thin hamburger in a small bun with a small shred of lettuce on it. We each had half a cup of orange juice to drink. I noticed that my companion and I were the only ones to be given a small paper napkin. During the meal, the youngest daughter became sleepy and we helped tuck her into her little bed. She had not finished eating (nor had the mother) but we nevertheless adjourned to some chairs to sit and talk that evening. The table was directly beside the chairs so as I left the area, I noted that the two older daughters remained, so I thought, to clean up. As I left the area, I watched them as they quietly and carefully divided the two partially eaten hamburgers, and ate the remains...hungrily. They watched each other during this, there was an understanding there. At the end of a very nice visit, the middle daughter presented my companion and I each with a small handmade statue commemorating her first communion. It was the nicest gift I think I have received in many years, obviously a product of much labor and determination. But they were so proud that I was bound to accept it graciously. It now resides in a prominent place in my living room...nearly the size of their entire house. I have thought about this lovely family often in the few days following. But especially this Thanksgiving as I practice gluttony amid a culture of excess, I will think of their generosity...and of two beautiful young girls, still hungry after a meal with friends. Have a happy Thanksgiving. Packsaddle

Hello Folks, I found this thread after returning from an extended Alaskan trip and it has been great. The fact is that I feel good that we can disagree without fighting and we seem to respect each others' rights to speak. I wish BSA did too. Littlebillie, hold down the fort for a while (great quotes, by the way). Alaska was good (cold, clean, a little shaky at times) but I am going to leave this thread for a while to travel to Costa Rica. It's a rough life. I'll try to check out Scouting down there. Later

OGE, I agree too. What you say reminds me of something A.N. Whitehead also said, somewhat harshly: "History, down to the present day, is a melancholy record of the horrors which can attend religion: human sacrifice, and in particular the slaughter of children, cannibalism, sensual orgies, abject superstition, hatred as between races, the maintenance of degrading customs, hysteria, bigotry, can all be laid at its charge. Religion is the last refuge of human savagery. The uncritical association of religion with goodness is directly negativated by plain facts." If this offends anyone, I advise that few in this forum need feel that way. I have observed great tolerance here (but not at BSA). I also disagree with Whitehead's quick association between religion and misery. It is a facile association and at the root, I think that some persons choose evil and then use religion as a justification. But I could be wrong, I suppose.

Rooster, I won't try to speak for all of 'you guys' but my view is that the common morality we share, regardless of its derivation, is acceptable to us because we choose to accept it (sorry for the circularity but it seems unavoidable). We collectively write the laws through a democratic process (citizenship in nation, community) and we individually decide right and wrong. Whether a person uses a Bible passage as their authority or if they derive it logically, they still decide individually how to think and act. I can't sort out the source of my or our development of this common morality because it isn't possible to remove me or us from it (a problem with social science and behavioral study methods). At the same time I am not certain it depends on any particular religious heritage. I think the good in people and in our lives can be found in persons who do not share our religious background and I have seen this in other countries and cultures. Throughout the world, people are basically the same with similar needs, desires, capabilities, and faults. ACCO40, I think this may be why you observe shared morals with the persons you mention. Rooster, to answer some of your questions, YOU can say which faith is invalid and the practitioners of that faith can disagree with you. If you want, YOU CAN create a new one to mock the laws of our country. You might have trouble accumulating followers or funding but that's your problem. There ARE cultural practices that I abhore (such as FGM) but I am not sure they have a religious basis, at least I don't know what religion that would be. I would challenge you to name some repulsive religions because I am interested. However, as I remember, at one time Christianity was repulsive to at least a large portion of the rest of the world. In more recent times the LDS church was considered to be a cult founded by a magician huckster who fabricated a "blasphemy" in the eyes of YOUR Christian majority. Not to mention the hateful view of Jews still held by many of our Christian contemporaries. Quite recently, I have heard different Protestant flavors referring to each other in pejorative terms. 'Repulsive' may be in the eye of the beholder (but I'll always think Raquel Welch is beautiful, I love you Raquel). So give it a try, I'm game. Actually, don't repulse me, tell us which ones YOU find repulsive.

littlebillie, "Hammurabi rocks" Uh, I don't know...'STONES' is more like it. Some examples from the code: 6. If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death. 7. If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death. 8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death. And also Rooster, Where these codes seem a little harsh by our current standards, they are not that far off of the original Judeo-Christian code, for example, where adulterers are supposed to be stoned to death, etc. I suppose some of us fantasize about applying that code to our former commander-in-chief but our population would quickly diminish if we applied it fairly. Not to mention that thing about cloven hooves. I LIKE pork barbecue and aside from having to watch my weight, our discovery of parasites and proper cooking has altered that part of our heritage. (except for Orthodox Jews who still try to be faithful to the code...maybe not that stoning part) I grant your argument that the founding fathers sprang from a society that had common roots, for the most part, in the Judeo-Christian heritage. But don't forget that many of the forefathers came here in PROTEST of religious persecution (read, extreme prejudice) in their countries of origin. As such their intent was to found a society where minorities (such as theirs had been) would be guaranteed the freedom of expression they had been denied elsewhere, even in the presence of some majority view. By claiming dominance, you are denying that intent. Rooster, where do you draw the line? Don't forget that as our nation was founded, the code included slavery...and the slave owners often employed the Biblical argument to support the practice. And as some of us maintain (not me), if we don't take it literally, all of it, then we must be rejecting it. My point is that the 'standard' as you put it does not exist in a single written code but rather in the mind of each individual. It changes with the population and, to answer one comment, in parts of the country, there is a distinct local effect reflecting that population - it changes with location. The code you speak of is dynamic and I doubt that anyone or any group could put it in words because of that dynamic. Not to mention technology. Remember the religious objections to 'the pill'? In vitro fertilization? Now we take such things in stride (except for an anachronistic minority who are within their first amendment right to vocally complain). The schools here have Judeo-Christian derivatives in attendance who speak in tongues and believe in snake-handling. I suspect their view is somewhat different from yours. I think that littlebillie's suggestion of the Golden Rule is a good one. The beauty of it is that it works and it crosses all the faiths and avoids most if not all the conflict.

KWC57 I hope I didn't offend you by my lack of understanding in that 'submit' example. When I married my wife I felt lucky not to have to change MY name. Seriously, I must be undergoing ZORN withdrawal. I miss that guy. Also MERLIN, where is he? Please don't tell me they were the same person, I couldn't take that. Everyone, have a nice day. Think I'll just have to overeat at lunch, maybe take up smoking...Nah, I'll stick to the food.

littlebillie "Are you suggesting that the exercise of Free Speech ..." According to my reading, this HAS happened (check with the Unitarian Universalists and others). You better watch your step, me too, because the thought-control police are in charge.

KWC57, I like your hypothetical. littlebillie Question at large - COULD AN ATHEIST SIGN THIS WITHOUT DUPLICITY, HYPOCRISY OR FRAUD? My answer, Yes an atheist could sign this statement. I am trying to think of who COULDN'T sign it, the statement is so wishy-washy. The BSA 'maintains'...it is their opinion and does not explicitly reject the possibility of an alternative. The BSA policy designates a clear hierarchy of 'home' over 'organization' over 'group' with regard to religious life. Except that it is basis for prejudicial views and actions, I have no problem with the statement. Was this passage the basis for the Lambert action? Is BSA planning to tighten it? Does anyone get a vote?

kwc57, in your reply to weekender - great reply and I agree with your philosophy. As an example, although I disagree with the Baptist doctrine of the wife 'submitting' to the husband, I respect your right to follow that doctrine (I suppose your wife would have to agree, too). I respect others' beliefs and I demand similar respect from them. I know of no faith that has not received rough treatment from other faiths and many of our wars have religious conflict as their cause or at least a significant component. Anyone who has attended Camp Meeting understands the desire for religious dominance and conquest by whatever flavor is being preached at the time (Although Rush could still be right, it's all about money) In my troop (multiple faiths) I consider the boy's religious development to be the primary responsibility of their parent(s), not me. In fairness, how can I require my Jewish scouts to participate in prayers to Jesus? (Yeah, I know, ScoutParent, they can go form their own organization) Not to mention the Buddhist, Moslem, or Hindu boys. I would deeply resent outsiders poking their noses into my childen's religious development and most of my parents have said they feel the same. So I don't. However, it is clear that there are persons in this forum who would like to do just that and feel it is their responsibility to push their beliefs on everyone else, the 'faith Nazis'. I suppose that they feel a responsibility, in this manner, to 'purify society' for their way of thinking. It is clear that, in a way, BSA is similarly inclined, hence my suggestion to use the Albert Speer model. At least that would be honest about its intent. Such intolerance is, however, unAmerican in spirit and unpatriotic in action...and ought to be unscoutlike...but tolerance is not one of the 12 points. Oh well. Bob White, Use of tobacco and other drugs is not covered by the first amendment. The difference is that exclusion because of the above is related to health and crime while exclusion because of beliefs is in violation of the first amendment. Obesity isn't a crime but I suppose BSA could investigate the possibilities. Weekender, As an educator I consider ignorance as something to be avoided. I can think of no situation where ignorance is an enhancement. I consider intentional ignorance to be the definition of stupidity. But the first amendment gives you that right. Rooster7, I know you understand these things and that you asked rhetorically. But: Lying is wrong, period. Stealing is wrong, period. I know of no faith that maintains deceit or crime to be good. But in real life we are often presented with conflicts that have unclear resolutions. The task is to try be fair to others without being unfair to ourselves. This requires us to tolerate different views and to prevent everyone's actions from causing harm to each other. Everyone, Remind me now, what good came from excluding Lambert? How were our lives enriched from that exercise? As opposed to, say, making BSA a tobacco free organization, how much better was Lambert's exclusion and why? Hey, 'tobacco-free', I like that. Then we can work on those evil fat people.

KWC57, STAGED? You sayin' it wasn't? ACCO40 If the BSA revoked the membership of every over weight SM, every smoker, etc. membership would decrease tremendously. Am I not trustworthy because I say the Scout Oath and am guilty of not getting enough sleep on camping trips? I believe that smokers pose a greater proximate health threat to youth than atheists and that anyone with a drunk driving record should be bounced ASAP. But don't stop at overweight. From my observations even to place the bar higher, say, at 'obese' would eliminate 50% of leaders. We don't exactly cover ourselves with glory on personal fitness. But I get your point. How does that Gilbert and Sullivan thing go, "If someday it should happen that some victims must be found, I have this little list, I have this little list. Of society offenders who might well be underground, and they'd none of 'em be missed, they'd none of 'em be missed." twin_wasp I firmly believe that BSA has no business dictating theology to religious denominations, as they have done with the Unitarians over the requirements for their badge. I agree with your statement but BSA didn't dictate to the UUs. The BSA 'excommunicated' them because they publicly disagreed with policy, a fate that has happened to others as well (look elsewhere among the threads). BSA has no allegiance to the First Amendment. (Yeah, yeah, I know, ScoutParent, 'go form my own organization...'.) littlebillie If there is no God, then we ARE animals, and if we are animals, we are cetainly social animals. among social animals certain behaviors promote survival of the species, and certain behaviors do not. As we are intelligent animals, we have codifed (well, overcodified, actually, but that's a different topic :-) our behaviors, and it DOES matter. As my beer-swizzling, cigarette-smoking, obscenity-slinging, obese acquaintances like to say, "God made them in His image". firstpusk Intelligent design...Good answer, but it was invented long before...just took the creationists a while to learn to read. NJCubScouter, I commend your patience, we know what science is around here as well. OK, some of us do anyway. Firstpusk Gee DeMann You're casting pearls, and this guy's already in orbit. Good suggestion, though, the community college. tjhammer Cubs --- that's not just LittleBillie's position, that's the official position of the BSA... for example, they don't ban homosexual Scouts and leaders if they are "closeted", and in the Lambert case, it seems the BSA was perfectly fine with him being an atheist, just as long as he lied to Scouting and said he wasn't. Absolutely Right!!! This is my beef with BSA. The BSA leadership is guilty of violating their own standards by acquiescing to silent lies! They are OK with having gays and atheists in scouting...as long as they keep quiet. Now there's an example to set for the boys! As a result the ensuing controversies embroil the organization in needless scrutiny and embarrassment over their hypocrisy rather than the real issues. Instead, we should not act ashamed of our policies. A perfect example to follow would be Albert Speer who alone (OK, maybe Hitler did too) truly believed in his cause and was unafraid to admit his actions. Not only that, he was proud and unashamed of it (until later). BSA should have followed this example and bounced Lambert WOFA. Then BSA should have loudly proclaimed our intolerance toward gays and atheists and persons who disagree with policy. Also that we have great diversity (Jews, hispanics, blacks, orientals, and Catholics) even though we could, if we wanted, exclude any of those kind as well. But they won't and the reason is...in the words of Rush, it's all about money. It is the scouting equivalent of PTL club (Pass The Loot, that is) and it won't change as long as professionals ignore the standards for themselves...that they choose to impose on others. Someone needs to sweep the barn out in our organization but I see no brooms in sight.

DeMann, I found a couple of quotes that may satisfy part of your original question. From a site on Hinduism: "Hinduism believes in the concept of evolution of life on earth. Although it is not the same as the one known to modern science, in many ways and in a very fundamental sense, it is not much different from the latter." From a site on Buddhism: "Buddhist philosophy is evolutionary and thus agrees with the scientists rather than the theologians. Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading . Buddhist philosophers consequently rejected the Platonic idea of production from 'ideal forms' as being the fallacy of 'production from inherently existent other'. According to most schools of Buddhism there is nothing whatsoever that is inherently or independently existent.. The two main creationist objections to evolution are: 1 Disagreement with Genesis 2 Blurring of the theological distinction between human and animal Neither of these pose any threat to Buddhist philosophy. The first objection is based on the need to maintain the truth of a particular creation story in order to preserve the underlying basis for all Biblical truth. This is not a worry to Buddhists because there is no corresponding Buddhist creation myth, and Buddhist philosophers have always accepted that the universe is many hundreds of millions of years old." The Catholic Church is not in disagreement with science on this either: "Message ON EVOLUTION to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences by HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II With great pleasure I address cordial greetings to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your work for the first time. I would also like to remember the academicians who died during the past year, whom I commend to the Lord of life. 1. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Academy's refoundation, I would like to recall the intentions of my predecessor Pius XI, who wished to surround himself with a select group of scholars, relying on them to inform the Holy See in complete freedom about developments in scientific research, and thereby to assist him in his reflections. He asked those whom he called the Church's Senatus scientificus to serve the truth. I again extend this same invitation to you today, certain that we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science (cf. Address to the Academy of Sciences, n. 1, 28 October 1986: L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 24 November 1986, p. 22). Science at the Dawn of the Third Millennium 2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since Revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of Revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium", starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation. 3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions. In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576). For my part, when I received those taking part in your Academy's plenary assembly on 31 October 1992, I had the opportunity, with regard to Galileo, to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 [1993], pp. 764-772; Address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 23 April 1993, announcing the document on The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 [1994], pp. 232-243). Evolution and the Church's Magisterium 4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought. Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy. And to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, an on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology. 5. The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (n. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubet"; Encyclical Humani generis, AAS 42 [1950], p. 575). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. 6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans. We Are Called to Enter Eternal Life 7. In conclusion, I would like to call to mind a Gospel truth which can shed a higher light on the horizon of your research into the origins and unfolding of living matter. The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. This vision guided me in the Encyclical which I dedicated to respect for human life, and which I called precisely Evangelium vitae. It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us. We are called to enter into eternal life, that is to say, into the eternity of divine beatitude. To warn us against the serious temptations threatening us, our Lord quotes the great saying of Deuteronomy: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4). Even more, "life" is one of the most beautiful titles which the Bible attributes to God. He is the living God. I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you. Joannes Paulus II October 23, 1996" Finally other religious organizations recognize, in varying ways, the legitimacy of evolutionary theory: American Jewish Congress Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences Central Conference of American Rabbis Episcopal Bishop of Alabama, Pastoral Letter Episcopal Church, General Convention Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders Lutheran World Federation Roman Catholic Church Unitarian-Universalist Association (1977) Unitarian Universalist Association (1982) United Church Board for Homeland Ministries United Methodist Church United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (1982) United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (1983) See you in another forum. Packsaddle

OGE, I liked your comment, "And thats the hardest thing about religion, sometimes you just have to suspend human rationality and just "believe"". It is represents the strength of faith. And I believe that it will always play a role in mankind. Science continues to advance in its own realm, however, and vigilance is needed to insure that we recognize its legitimacy. DeMann mentioned a very good example of one of the pithy questions that science still wrestles with, I am not sure it is addressed biblically at all. Gravity. Even if we understood the physics necessary to explain gravity in contemporary scientific terms, I doubt that we would, nevertheless, KNOW what gravity is, only what its apparent effect is. Way back as a beginning biologist, I noticed the difficulty of working with gravity in a simple experiment to study its effect. Knowing that there probably is no place in the universe that does not experience gravity, I grew sunflowers in a centrifuge to simulate gravity greater than earth's. Actually about 100 times greater. I received a mediocre grade because, as the professor pointed out, the force I subjected the plants to was not gravity at all, just another force that seemed similar in effect. I still feel some shame at the attempt. In my troop are boys with Buddhist, Jewish, Catholic, Islamic, and many flavors of Protestant backgrounds. Where they would tend to disagree greatly if asked for their beliefs, for example, on creation, most of them would agree on the existence and effects of gravity, for that matter other scientific matters. In this way science can bring people with highly diverse backgrounds together. They would have no idea, however, what gravity actually IS. Yet we take it for granted, every one of us, that this 'gravity' will work constantly for or against us in our labors. We know neither its origin nor, really, its mechanism and yet we accept it and use it because to some limited extent we can predict its effect scientifically. Some would call this a type of faith. If all faith was as open to new observations and discussion (as it seems to be in this forum), it would be a good thing. Nice example DeMann.

What happened to Zorn?

Rooster7, Thank you for your heartfelt and sincere thoughts. I think we have a lot of common ground and, as you say, there are both scientists and non-scientists who hold very rigid, conflicting views. I agree that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. In my view science can be used as a way to expand our sense of wonder and awe. I get the impression that DeMann, for example, sees science as some kind of enemy and I am still trying to understand such response. All of us, I think, are looking for answers to what are often similar questions. Inevitably, we tend to answer the easy questions first, the ones remaining pose greater and greater challenges. Some will remain unassailable perhaps. I think this is true for both science and religion. I also agree with your rationale for belief in God. (I sort of expected someone to take my comment in a meaning I did not intend.) To me, the difference between faith-based belief and scientific knowledge is the willingness to admit the possibility of being wrong. How many times have you heard a minister or anyone advocating their faith say, for example, "I could be wrong, but...." or "I think this is 'probably' how to interpret this..." Not often (actually never) in my experience. Scientists, honestly, do this often. When they don't you are correct to take them to task. In some sense, we are all true believers in science because we all benefit from the fruits of science as well as employing the method in our day-to-day lives. One problem occurs with the concept of a 'fact'. Science and religion both have 'truth' as their goal and one of them is already in possession of it. Science is still searching. Facts, on the other hand, are not fixed, unchanging things. An old scientist I once knew claimed that, "...a fact is something that is not currently under investigation." Meaning: if we accept something as fact, such could have a short lifetime if evidence to the contrary arises. Only a few 'facts' survive for long and most of us would agree, for example, with such facts as the number of chromosomes in the human cell (discounting the examples where the number is different as in Down Syndrome) or the amount of energy produced through combustion of some fuel. We accept these because we either don't care either way or we put them to the test fairly often and they continue to seem to work. I doubt that many of us would willingly return to the days prior to the discovery of the cellular basis of life, or the time when chemistry employed the doctrine of 'phlogiston'. The 'facts' at those times, in many instances, are quite different from today and I, for one, am glad of it. One reason for the misconception is that a 'fact' is often in the eye of the beholder. The irony that I have detected is that persons attempting to refute theories such as evolution are more likely to identify certain observations as 'facts' than are the scientists who made the observations. Scientists who are not careful about their reports and characterizations can get some rough treatment. Does anyone remember cold fusion (the Utah effect)? I thank my lucky stars I wasn't working in THEIR lab. There may still be some believers out there who are trying to make this work. Forgive me for doubting them, I hope they succeed. The number of perpetual motion machines seem endless and all discredited. Yet, I know that if I invoke the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it will only be in a hopelessly superficial manner (too many years since differential equations, I hated them anyway) and I know that without a strong background, ANY discussion of the 2nd law is simlarly doomed to superficiality. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is another order of magnitude yet. I often encounter 'facts' that people defend, sometimes violently. One man was ready to fight for his rendition of how opossums breed through the nose. Another similar encounter occurred through a fisherman's insistence that an eel is basically like a snake. One of my favorites is a 'fact' that the boy's are fond of: Daddy-longlegs are the most poisonous spiders, their fangs are just too small to inflict harm to us. (Incidentally, all of the above are false) I have identified so many decapitated harmless snakes mistaken for poisonous ones that I invented a new species, the "coppermouthedrattlemoccasin". This includes any harmless reptile hacked to smithereens by someone with a hoe. The mystery to me is why they ever bother to ask, self doubt maybe? I don't let them off easily. They are seldom contrite. Faith obviously requires no such preparation. It is available to anyone, any time, no matter how erudite or ignorant. It merely needs to be absolute. As a developing Presbyterian I heard, "Faith can move mountains" and I admit that as an impressionable youth, I strained hard for that faith. Today, however, I recognize that my inability to move that mountain was neither a test of the concept of faith, but it also was not a test of my faith either. There simply is no test save that which you apply to yourself (again, this is just my personal view). Rooster, your faith is as constant as you make it. Science should have no bearing on it. Yet, and at the same time, the age of the universe as postulated by scientists will continue to be argued and modified long after we are gone. (But no one, not anyone, will change the value of pi)

Hey, I think I said (or meant to, anyway) that there aren't answers presently in hand to all the questions. Emotion is a good one, too. The assumption is that there 'is' (in the sense of 'within the realm of possiblity') a rational explanation, not that such explanations are in hand. As for the Bible, I like some parts more than others. Like that? For example, I don't particularly like that part about visiting the iniquities of one generation on future generations (who otherwise may be quite innocent of those iniquities). I don't particularly like the idea of killing first born children to make some point to a ruler. Do I agree that those things happened? Probably, but I don't know for sure, I'm OK with not being absolutely certain about a lot of things. As for factuality, I don't know enough about its derivation to pass final judgement. Except for the concept of prophesy...if it hasn't happened yet, there is no way to judge its factuality at all. If that's not good enough for you, tough luck. This is supposed to be about YOUR personal lack of understanding, remember? Who started this thread anyway? I see the biblical creation as something unaddressable by science. If you therefore want to paint me as a non-believer that's your judgement to make. Is there anything I could do or say that could change your mind? Do you really think everyone on earth agrees on right and wrong? They might on very simple questions but those are easy. Society in part of the world believes that FGM is right, many of the rest of the world, me included, think it is wrong. What about the really tough decisions that have lives hanging in both directions? Do you want everyone to be like you? Does anyone else in this forum want everyone to be like DeMann? Sheesh! Moral relativism is practiced by many people and societies and, for better or worse, I try to live with that fact of life. You didn't answer my question, though, are we to eject all non-creationists? Is that your wish? It's a YES or NO question and you won't get a grade.

Rooster7, I repeat, science does not address God in any way. It does not refute God or religion nor does it support God or religion. It is totally consumed with the rational world and has plenty of questions there without tackling those that are solely a matter of faith. I am sympathetic to some persons who sincerely feel that science is in conflict with religion but there simply is no such conflict, only a personal perception of such. On a different thought, does anyone have any idea of what all this has to do with Scouting? Have I missed something, is there a movement out there to eject science and scientists from Scouting? Or what?

DeMann, to your questions: 1. to add to my original answer, no one knows for sure but...My bet is that it was very simple, mostly employed the same amino acids as we do, and had the same base pairs that we have. (It might taste sour if seasoned improperly, though) It reproduced because (and this is going to be a bit circular) reproduction is one characteristic in the definition of life (which, incidentally, is still being debated in some circles, the definition, that is). If it doesn't reproduce, you have to work hard to qualify it as life, much less an organism. Crystals reproduce but don't have the other characteristics. 2. Men are animals. What Phylum do you suggest? Or did I not understand the question? 3. As I have contended elsewhere, a person's beliefs are theirs and deeply personal. You should look to no other person nor depend on them to form or justify your personal beliefs. Answer it for yourself. I must admit I am a little surprised to see you ask this. Yet, once you have decided, you should not place yourself in a position of superiority over persons with different beliefs (this is where some have trouble). 4. You will get different answers from different persons and in different societies. Science will not provide the answer and can't. It will, however, provide numerous opportunities to ask the question repeatedly as a result of new technologies. (Jesus probably never envisioned xenobiotic transplants or genetic engineering, for example, I could be wrong). I am OK with the unity of life and spirituality if that is what persons wish to believe. I see it as neither a superior nor inferior view to others, though. To back up a bit, though, you asked about the odds of an organism 'popping up' and so on. What organism? Why not errors? How could anyone begin to calculate such a probability without making huge guesses? I am looking around me for the perfect organism...Maybe I am looking in the wrong place. You seem to be in disbelief of the biblical creation and this seems incredible. Science does not say, "God had nothing to do with the beginning of life." Science simply can't address God at all. ScienTISTS, again, who might make such an incendiary statement are asking to be taken to task and they usually are, eventually, you might enjoy such yourself. But science simply assumes that there exist rational explanations for observable phenomena. The search goes on for many of those explanations, though, with the probability that there will never be answers for all of them. This is not very satisfying for persons who need to feel secure in their beliefs or need to think they have answers to all the questions. If they feel their views are threatened by or in conflict with this approach, they have misunderstood that the goals of science are not to threaten but to build on rational knowledge. I see nothing wrong with that. P.S. that sour taste thing was a joke.

Americans are notoriously deficient in foreign language skills and I must confess that I contribute to this sad situation. I...don't...know...Aramaic. I know, it's ugly -but it had to be told.