Christianity is based on ignorance because the entire religion is founded on the experiences of Jesus Christ. You will never know what those experiences really were and therefore, you'll always be in a state of ignorance. Every religion that requires faith needs ignorant followers. The whole point of the faith is to fill in for that 'unknown' part that makes you ignorant in the first place. You need to be ignorant to have faith...end of story.

Heaven, your ideas of God, angels, etc, etc...all fantasies you brew in your head. With every experience portrayed in the Bible you read you just add to the fantasies. It's all fantasy, because it's all in the past. You've never experienced anything you've read about in the Bible. Every person that picks up the Bible or any other religious text creates their own fantasy and ideas.

The Bible talks about people descending the tower of bablyon and all this other non-sense. It's such a joke, considering what science has discovered. Obviously you don't see that.

In my mind, someone who believes something, without being able to verify it, is incredibly dumb, dull-minded and dangerous. It's such an incredibly irrational way of thinking, just like those suicide bombers who think they are going to heaven with a million virgins. They have the same attitude you do. They can't see it, touch it or smell it, but because some authority figure told them they believe it. If that's not stupid, then what is!? To me, these people have given up the search and would rather live in their fantasies.

-- Digity (digamen@hotmail.com), June 03, 2004

Answers

I have never experienced WWI. I don't know anyone that has. I read it in books. How do I know it really happened?

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 04, 2004.

Hey Digity, have you ever loved someone or had them love you? How do you know? You can't see, touch, or smell love. But I believe love not only exists, but is the most powerful thing in the world. Obviously I'm just stupid.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 04, 2004.

Some of the biggest critics of Christianity, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Locke, Hume, Descartes, Heidegger, even Sartre and Camus, men who are more brilliant then you or I will ever be, have all said the same thing. Without mystery, all knowledge means nothing. All of them, crticizing Christianity's essential core, at the end say that the biggest strength of Christianity, is its loyalty to mystery. All of them, at the end, still step back and say that one may never have knowledge as certain as that which silently resides in the heart of the believer.

Digity, you can say what you will, but know that you can never take away the dignity of the believer. That dignity is as hard as a diamond. Certain and true only to those humble enough to accept it.

-- Shiznit (Shiznit@Shiznit.com), June 04, 2004.

What you say is not true. Christianity is not based on ignorance. Jesus is not the only one who experienced what is written down in the New Testament. He actually performed miracles on other people who told others that they were healed by Jesus. His disciples experienced a lot when Jesus transfigured on the mountain in the Bible. People built the tower of Babylon and had to experience the consequences.

Are attitude is not bad like the ones who are suicide bombers. We are not to kill ourselves or our enemies, but love them. How Jesus teaches to love one another works. That is the verification. When we Christians are obedient to His will, we have peace.

Atheists have faith in no God, because no one can prove that God doesn't exist. This is if you are an atheist, because I am not sure about what you consider yourself. If you are than you are being silly to say that those who have faith are ignorant, because if you are an atheist you are saying you are ignorant.

God bless you.

-- Sonya (johnsonya2003@hotmail.com), June 04, 2004.

I would rather be 'ignorant' than faithless.

-- A believer (LovedByJesus@Anglican.Com), June 04, 2004.

there is a physical phenomenon that is somewhat similar to mirroring (your reflection does what you do). this can be seen in an isolated system by changing the engergy fields around two electrons. one is seperated from the other and both are made to be completely isolated within the system, although in a way that one is considered mirrored to the other. when one electron is moved in any way, the other mirrors it exactly maintaining the harmony of the overall system. when one moves closer to the boundary, the other moves closer to the boundary, when one does a flip to face the other direction, the second does so automatically. there is no force acting on the second electron, it simply moves to match the first.

the problem with this is that it is repeated in nature... in fact, there are good theories that state that our entire universe has a mirrored universe (in case you all didnt know, the universe is finite and doesnt go on forever). this means that whenever any particle (even your arm) moves, there is a set of matter exactly identical which reflects your movement in a balance. scientist do not know how this occurs, that over BILLIONS of BILLIONS of lightyears, the reflection could instantly know and move to mirror, and yet, it happens. two theories arise. the first is that all particles are tied to their mirrored particle by a "thread" of invisible material that instantly tugs at the matching particles when the material here moves. this theory sounds ridiculous, something more like the silly ideas of eighteenth century scientists describing the liquid ether in heat transfer.

the second theory is that there is a universal field that surrounds everything in the universe and in the mirror. when we do something, this field that surrounds us is instantly aware and can instantly translate that accross the universe and the mirror to our reflected system. THIS, i believe, is the closest human conception that we can have of God. it is real, it is there, it surrounds every one of us.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2004.

"It's such a joke, considering what science has discovered."???

Anyone with any depth of knowledge of science will tell you, the more we try to "fill the unknown part" with science and experience, the more we realize how truly ignorant we are. Religion "fills a gap" which science cannot ever fill. As Einstein said, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame."

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 04, 2004.

digity-- its more than just blind faith. some people have reached out to God for strength or inspiration and have felt His presence-or all of THOSE stories also "fantasy".

to some, matters of faith are difficult to accept. i understand that totally-- but i think ive also experienced God in action, in one way or another.

its not all "fantasy". He is real. what does He look like? where does he dwell? i have no idea and its not important for my earth-bound mind to understand that at this time.

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), June 04, 2004.

oh, by the way-- the title should read: "...ignorance at ITS best?" (no apostrophe in "its") :)

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), June 04, 2004.

Digity,

"For those who believe no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe no explanation is possible."

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 04, 2004.

Digity believes in evolution. So there is no God to him.

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

I generally don't pay too much attention to people who don't even know the difference between IT'S and ITS. (IT'S = IT IS or IT HAS, remember? "Ignorance at it is best," or would that be "Ignorance at it has best?")

Digity, can you appreciate the irony?

-- It's its (It@is.com), June 04, 2004.

"It's all fantasy, because it's all in the past." I LOVE that argument! Absolutely priceless!

Digity, your birth occurred in the past, did it not? Therefore, your birth is a fantasy; it never really happened, because it's not happening right now, at least according to your "logic."

You don't exist. You are a myth.

So, thank you Digity, for giving me and my friends something to laugh about. Unfortunately, you will most likely become much less amusingwhen you grow up. :(

-- Oh no! I don't exist! (I'm@fantasy.com), June 04, 2004.

and now to turn this thread into something USEFUL...

Digity believes in evolution. So there is no God to him.

dont be silly henri, there is no incompatability with the scripture and evolution, and the belief in evolution does not determine a persons spiritual standing. truth cannot conflict with truth, and evolution is a recognized fact, so the scriptures can't contradict it. as surely as the earth goes around the sun, evolution occurred.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2004.

What's the connection between worshipping God and believing in biological science?? I believe in both.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 04, 2004.

"In my mind, someone who believes something, without being able to verify it, is incredibly dumb, dull-minded and dangerous."

Ahh, but there's the rub, because each of us has verified it to our own satisfaction. Indeed we have. Christians are more than just believers in a dead man's teachings. Jesus Christ lives in Heaven and leads His Church every day and is presently with each and every believer who have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of them actively moving, changing and directing our lives and actually demonstrating his existence to us everyday - we KNOW He's in us!

Even the scientifically minded, such as Einstein and Hawkins, recognize that a super-intelligence (a "God") must be responsible for designing the universe based on the evidence they have witnessed. Once you've matured in your understanding of science to recognize the existence of God, then it's just a matter of figuring out who God is . . . that's when you realize only One has resurrected from the dead to prove once and for all that He's the genuine article - Jesus Christ. So keep pursuing your faith in science, eventually, you'll wind up here asking for help to understand this God who you now know exists. We'll still be here waiting for you :-)

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), June 04, 2004.

Paul h said: truth cannot conflict with truth, and evolution is a recognized fact, so the scriptures can't contradict it. as surely as the earth goes around the sun, evolution occurred.

If evolution is a fact or it does occurred, then apes will continue to evolve into human beings. I am wonder how christians were convinced to believe in evolution.

Everything in the universe and earth happens the way God wants them to happen. He is the Sovereignity God.

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

Henri,

then apes will continue to evolve into human beings.

No, apes evolved into apes. They might evolve into *better* apes, but why would they evolve into men? Evolution happens when one species mutates in such a way that it is better able to fill a vacuum in the environment than its neighbor. This species will then out eat and out breed its competitors, and become a "new" species. Apes evolved to be well suited for their environment, and without a loss of that environment have no reason to change. We have no reason to evolve at this point either, physically, we can shape our environment to our needs.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 04, 2004.

Henri, Frank, this is for both of you:

actually, frank, the human body continues to evolve to this very day... albight in ways which are different from previous evolutions. for example, the average length of the pinky finger is getting shorter and shorter because it is not used any more (no more hanging from trees) and therefore not needed. likewise brain structure is changing to be more complex and to contain more dendrites (sp?). the average second year physics student today knows more about physics than even the most brilliant minds of physics back in the renaissance... and i suspect that watching the trend long enough will show humans being born earlier and earlier, as the cranium becomes enlargened to encompass a higher brain mass.

Henri, you asked why, if evolution is a fact, don't apes continue to evolve into humans.

well, its simple really. apes are, in a way, victims of humanity. apes continue to evolve today, in much the same way we do... on a small scale and more having to do with intelligence than with physical structure. they also, however, have a roof that prevents them from evolving into humans. that peak strata of evolution is already filled, there is already a dominant species. we supress, through various means, the ability of the ape to evolve. if we were to be completely wiped out, the evolutionary process would kick in and another species would quickly come to dominate, supressing the evolution of other creatures.

why does evolution occur only on an intellectual and micro scale today? well, simply put, humans are the lifeform which is best suited for the environment of this planet. thus, for the time being our physical form is the best suited form for continuing life in this habitat. our intelligence is our greatest strength and our means of continuing dominence of the system, so THAT is what continues to develope at a fairly alarming rate. evolution is right before you... in fact, its proof is right in a childs brain size and shorter pinky finger.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2004.

Ahhhhhh..... Ignorance is bliss!!!!!!!!!!

-- mark a (stillasking@middle.age), June 04, 2004.

paul,

Can you give me a genetic explanation of HOW a pinky finger is getting shorter? There's a difference between *environmental* factors altering an organism, and genetic ones permanently changing it into a new species. For example, a weightlifter builds more muscle mass, but if he stops, this regresses. Similarly, someone who doesn't have their eyes develop properly doesn't develop their optic centers in their brains, but that does NOT mean the potential isn't their for their offspring to be perfectly normal humans. Neither of these represents an evolutionary change.

I don't think either of your examples are true genetic change, but agree there is some level of evolutionary change constantly occuring in our population. For example, if rich Western people don't breed enough to maintain their numbers, and the poor continue breed more than their population, eventually the genes of the poor will predominate. This is different though than making a new species as might occur after a global nuclear war where some people could survive in their new environment, and some couldn't, leading to selective survival.

If anything, I'd say society is reversing evolutionary trends, as some people with serious childhood or congenital diseases are being cared for and going on to have children of their own rather than dying beforehand.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 04, 2004.

hey frank, hold a sec...

MODERATOR, i somehow managed to post twice on accident, please delete the first of my repeated posts above.

okay, frank, everyone has this myth in mind that evolution must incur genetic change and only then can it encorporate physical change. that simply is not the case. often times physical changes can lead to genetic compensation. for example, if running and getting in shape are practiced often enough, for enough generations in a row, then the genetics of that line will move to reflect that trend. genetics are not the end-all of physical form, and can even be influenced by physical form.

what do i mean when i say pinky fingers are getting shorter? i mean that in midievil times the pinky finger was nearly as long as the ring finger. today i can look at my pinky finger and see that it ends at the first knuckle from the tip of my ring finger, you can see it too, on your own hand. another example is hieght, although that is more a matter of mating selection than of usage. people today are much taller, on average, than people in the middle ages.

it is a fault of creationists that they fail to encompass the theories of evolution when they argue against it. they base their entire arguement on the ideas that: 1) man evolved from apes similar to those found on the planet today. 2) the only form of evolution is natural selection. 3) evolution denies other physical laws. 4) Evolution isnt seen today. 5) genetics must change in order for physical change to occur.

all of these premises are false, and thus the current arguements against evolution are actually straw man logical fallacies, because they argue against a set of premises which are false (not even accepted by evolutionists or cre-evolutionists).

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 04, 2004.

Christianity is based on ignorance because the entire religion is founded on the experiences of Jesus Christ. You will never know what those experiences really were and therefore, you'll always be in a state of ignorance.

{Technically innaccurate. Christainity is based on the teahcigns of Jesus christ, NOT his expeirences. His miracles et all merely confirmed the teahcings. It is also based o the attonement of sin which Jesus performed. Not his expeirnce so much as thr act itsself.

Neither the teachigns nor the act of attonemen are personal expwirences, and the teahcings which are central to Christainity can be given out without even knowing the life of Christ. However, to be compelte in the Knoledg eof christyainity you will need to also know his sacifice.}-Zarove

Every religion that requires faith needs ignorant followers.

{Not realy. Faith is only another word for confedence. Soemhow you wish, as most atheists I argue with do, to rener the word "Faith" as meaning " Beleif in irrational things we dont know." In reality Faith is nohtign more than confedence.}-Zarove

The whole point of the faith is to fill in for that 'unknown' part that makes you ignorant in the first place. You need to be ignorant to have faith...end of story.

{ So if soemone has faith in their country and what it stands for, they are ignorant, end of story?

An american may have faith in what America stands for and is constitution, this does not mean he is ignorant of American hisotry or the contents of the document in queastion. Faith is NOT merley somethign that fills in for soemthign we dotn know, it is confedence in and lotalty to soemthing.

In Christainity, faith is loyalty to an ideal, and a person, Jesus christ, and his teahcings. Faith, then, is merely beleivign in, and actign on, these things he taught us, and thus not only doesnt requite ignorance, but demands we learn, sicne we CANNOT have faith in his teachigns if we do NOT learn those teachigns int he first palce.

This is just you interpoluting your definitoon of faith into what we mean when w say Have Faith.}-Zarove

Heaven, your ideas of God, angels, etc, etc...all fantasies you brew in your head.

{Interestignly, I am dyslexic. This is why I spell so badly. Another side effect is that I cant become dilusional. Ever. I cant really hav storng vivid fantasies, and althoguh i cna imagine a lot, these thigns never seem "Real" to me, as they arent. My midnset is very, very logically based and very, very incompatable with fantasy.

All this said, I have a very literalistic mind. I beleive in God, I cannot be explained away as simpley as you try to explin thigns here, any more than faith can be expaliend away asfillign in for what we don't know.

Your own narrow scope of reasoning has lead you to error, I fear...}- Zarove

With every experience portrayed in the Bible you read you just add to the fantasies. It's all fantasy, because it's all in the past.

{So everythign int he past i fantasy? Sorry, I class thing sin the past as "History". Lord of the rings is Fantacy.

The definition of Fantasy sint " Things that happened int eh past" but things thta are imaginesd or dreamed of, esp. of a grandious or unrealistic nature. Hisotry is defined as things that happened in the past.}-Zarove

You've never experienced anything you've read about in the Bible. Every person that picks up the Bible or any other religious text creates their own fantasy and ideas.

{Actually I have experenced a lot the Bible talks about.

I have experienced the pains sin causes, fr instance. I have expeirnced the sword Jesus mentioned. I have experienced the double mindedness and instability.

I have expeirneced it all... saying I never have expeirneced it is, of ocurce, moronic and one has to wonder if you even know what the Bible contains.}-Zarove

The Bible talks about people descending the tower of bablyon and all this other non-sense. It's such a joke, considering what science has discovered. Obviously you don't see that.

{Decendign the tower of babylon? Science nor the Bible mention this at all...}-Zarove

In my mind, someone who believes something, without being able to verify it, is incredibly dumb, dull-minded and dangerous.

{Then you must be dumb, dull-minded, and dangerous, since you beleive the Bible records peopel decending the tower of babylon. An event which i cannot recall in any pasag ein eh Bible.

Likewise, I wager their are lots of things you beleive in that arent verifiable. So do I. fo instance, I beleive heir is porabely lif eon other words. I jave no proof their is any life on any planet beides Earth. I thus cannot verify it. Woudl you class this beelifas Dumb or dangerous?

Or is it nly (Christain) rleigious beleifs youmake such claims to?}- Zarove

It's such an incredibly irrational way of thinking, just like those suicide bombers who think they are going to heaven with a million virgins.

{Try 70 virgins. Einstein once remarked that those who are carelss wihthe truth in slmall matters of detail shoudl not be truted with it on larger issues. Also, you have just commited a slippery slope fallacy, you hae linked general beleivers in Chrisyainity with suicide bombers on principle without shoiwnfg a real teneble link.

In WW2 the Japanese had Kamakazi pilots who served their ordes based on antionalism, des his mean all patriots are suidocde pilots?

For one who seeks to advicate rationality, you do a poor job of actually using reason.}-Zarove

They have the same attitude you do.

{No, they don't.}-Zarove

They can't see it, touch it or smell it, but because some authority figure told them they believe it. If that's not stupid, then what is!? To me, these people have given up the search and would rather live in their fantasies.

{I actally CAN confrm a lo fo the Bible, as far as the intrapersonal teahcigns are concenred. in fact,t he Bibel DEMANDS we test it.

I odn't beleive because an authority fougre told me to, I beleive because what I read int he Bible makes sence and is applicable to my life.

Of coruse, your too narroe minded and shortsighted to actually think this a possibility, instead you prefer steryotypign all Chrisyaisn in genral into your own expectations to mock and beraethem... yeah thats logical.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 04, 2004.

paul,

or example, if running and getting in shape are practiced often enough, for enough generations in a row, then the genetics of that line will move to reflect that trend. genetics are not the end-all of physical form, and can even be influenced by physical form.

Do you have any proof of this? A woman has all her ova prior to being born herself, how would whatever she did in life influence her DNA?

what do i mean when i say pinky fingers are getting shorter? i mean that in midievil times the pinky finger was nearly as long as the ring finger. today i can look at my pinky finger and see that it ends at the first knuckle from the tip of my ring finger, you can see it too, on your own hand. another example is hieght, although that is more a matter of mating selection than of usage. people today are much taller, on average, than people in the middle ages.

I can't say I've seen anything on pinky finger size from the middle ages to now, could you point me to a link? Height probably has much more to do with diet than anything else.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 04, 2004.

Einstein also said:

The ethical behavior of man is better based on sympathy, education, and social relationships, and requires no support from religion. Man's plight would, indeed, be sad if he had to be kept in order through fear of punishment and hope of rewards after death.

It is, therefore, quite natural that the churches have always fought against science and have persecuted its supporters.

Not necessarily taking sides, but I didn't think it was fair to imply that Einstein was a Christian -- or an overly religious man -- by any means.

-- Digity (digamen@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.

No one can fail to notice your obvious ignorance; and here you come to charge others with that.

The Catholic Church founded almost every one of the western world's great centers of learning. I'm right now at a loss to recall how many universities were founded by atheists and freethinkers.

Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne, Heidelberg, Cologne, Salamanca, All Catholic universities from their founding. Same with the great hospitals; mostly set up in Europe by monastic orders of the Catholic faith. Scientists? A few: Newton, Mendel, Msr & Mdm Curie, Charcot, Pasteur; all Catholics. The greatest poets & artists: all Catholics; Rafael, El Greco, Giotto, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dante, Rilke, Saint John of the Cross. The first printing press, built by Gutenberg, a Catholic. The first novelist, Cervantes, a Catholic.

Yet you were saying the Church has ''fought against science.'' Education as well as medicine evolved within Christian society. So did western music, scored for the first time in Catholic Italy. God has just blessed us Catholics, I guess. We never deserved to change humanity's destiny. But there you are, Diggitty. (We fooled ya.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2004.

Einstein also said: The ethical behavior of man is better based on sympathy, education, and social relationships, and requires no support from religion. Man's plight would, indeed, be sad if he had to be kept in order through fear of punishment and hope of rewards after death.

{Religion sint about reward and punishment. Hey, Einnstein wasn't always right, he opposed Quantum Mechanics for instance. I just used a quote that was fitting to my topic, the point remains that you are sloppy in your presentation of facts.}-Zarove

It is, therefore, quite natural that the churches have always fought against science and have persecuted its supporters.

{The Chruch has not fought science and persecuted its supporters. This is a popular myht, but if pressed, the only name that ever seems to show up is Galilio, who was not persecuted by the chrych for his sicnetific veiws but on his queastionign the vlaidity of the Popes authority.

The chruch has never fought science. I doubt you can name any instance where it has, or persecuted its supporters.}-Zarove

Not necessarily taking sides, but I didn't think it was fair to imply that Einstein was a Christian -- or an overly religious man -- by any means.

{I didn't imply he was Chrisain. Nor did I imply he was religious. All I did was use one of his quotes, if anyone can read my post and coe away thinkign einstein eas a christain, then the fault lies not in my post, but in their overactive imaginations. Heck, I ha quoted atheists like Segan in the past, if their quote fits what I am talkign about. It means nohtign except their wording fits what I need to say.

Rather than cry foul over this matter, perhaps you shoudl focis on the acutal point of my comments, and not try to show personal disdaine for soemthign that i intreality didnt do.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 05, 2004.

Digity's quote from Einstein says only that one can justify ethical behavior without religion. He does not deny that religion certainly helps us be ethical. Neither I nor Zarove implied that Einstein was Christian. But by taking one early quote in isolation Digity clearly implied that Einstein was an atheist.

Consider a more representative collection of Einstein’s recorded statements:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." "We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." "What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life." (The World as I See It, 1934)

"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness." "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."

"There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty." (in American Jewish Yearbook 1944-1945, p 251).

The great man was quite clearly not an atheist, Digity. He also said, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 07, 2004.

"Education as well as medicine evolved within Christian society."

That is a fairly presumptous statement.

"The Church has not fought science and persecuted its supporters. This is a popular myth, but if pressed, the only name that ever seems to show up is Galileo, ..."

Darwin?

-- Benchwarmer (sense@necessary.com), June 07, 2004.

benchwarmer,

the church does not fight the theory of evolution or darwin's work regarding it... those are protestants, and we're discussing catholics here (you know, being a catholic forum and all)

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 07, 2004.

"Education as well as medicine evolved within Christian society." That is a fairly presumptous statement. - (Benchwarmer)

You're displaying your ignorance of history, Benchwarmer. Why do you think that teachers with university degrees traditionally wear black robes? Why did medical practitioners until recently always dress in black? Why do we speak of a "doctorate" from a university, and call medical practitioners "doctor" (Latin for "teacher")? Because for centuries all medical practitioners were Catholic priests! Universities were originally monasteries and retain many of the same traditions even today. For over a thousand years the Catholic church was virtually the ONLY thing in Europe keeping the sciences, medicine, and the arts and humanities, alive and growing. So it was not a presumptuous statement at all. If anything it was overly modest.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 07, 2004.

Yechniclaly and beign fair, Protestants didnt attack darwin either. He lead a relatively sedate life and was NEVER harrassed by ANY religious authorities with regards to his provate life.

Many Protestants likewise do not concern themselves at all withthe Theory of evoltion, which also techniclaly speaking Darwin never held. He held the prototype theory of Natrual selection and slwo miutation over time. The theory itsself evolved into what we think of with evolution.

But neither Catholics or Protestnats reallt persecuted Darwin. Many disagreed with him, but this is not automatic persecution.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 07, 2004.