Vatican says evolution does happen. But of course, God did it.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, a representative of the Vatican, has admitted that the church has been hostile to Darwin in the past, considering the theory of evolution to run against Christian teaching. However, the church now accepts that the “time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation” of Darwin and they have concluded that maybe he wasn't so bad after all. They have now decreed that evolution is not incompatible with the Christian faith.

However, they have been slightly reticent in giving Darwin credit for his discoveries, quickly stating that evolution could be traced back to St Augustus and St Thomas Acquinas and that “in fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God”. Still it's a step in the right direction.

Ravasi's statement was also very clear in illustrating the papal position as being against Creationism and Intelligent Design. However, given that, as I understand it, most Creationists are from protestant denominations and seem generally to herald the Pope as some kind of devil anyway, I don't think that will change too many people's minds.

Heroic summary of the case against MMR causing autism

I don't really want to use this blog to re-post stuff from other people's blogs. It's lazy, for one thing, and seems to rather miss the point of having an outlet for my own thoughts. That said, however, I shall now go on and do just that.

As part of the aftermath of Ben Goldacre's (of Bad Science) ripping of a radio show on LBC by Jeni Barnett, Holford Watch have written an absolutely heroic summary of the evidence in favour of vaccinations. It contains more links that you could shake many many sticks at and is a generally excellent repository of scientific and popular information on the subject.

If anyone reading this believes that MMR causes autism (and is intellectually truthful enough to be willing to objectively evaluate evidence), I urge you to read this post and click through to a few of the links on there.

Are you a terrorist? And what are you doing with that sock?

Harrow Council have reportedly started offering classes to help Muslim mothers recognise signs that their children are being recruited into extremist groups over the internet.

Apparently the signs to look out for are:

young people becoming secretive about their web use and shutting down browsers suddenly

and:

becoming withdrawn or difficult after using the computer

Hmmmm, I don't think it's only Muslims being drawn into extremist groups who would exhibit those warning signs.
Add a warning to look out for rapidly diminishing supplies of tissues and socks, and every pubescent boy with an internet connection will be on their way to Guantanamo Bay.

Deal or No Deal's Psychic Test

The Australian version of Deal or No Deal has shown a special edition of the show where all the contestants are psychics (I don't know when it was aired, I just found it on Youtube).

It's a pretty brilliant idea to have psychics on this show. Contestants are asked to make definitely falisifiable predictions and those predictions are checked then and there to see whether they were right or not, so there's no room to make wooly predictions or wriggle out of misses.

The australian version of the show has an extra element that the British version lacks: every time a box is selected, the person holding that box is given the opportunity to guess what's in it, with a chance of winning $1000 if they're right. That means there are that many more falsifiable predictions to be tested.

There's a lot of padding on this show, but it's worth watching all the way through the above video and the other 4 parts on youtube to see how many of the predictions turn out to be true (spoiler: not very many).

To Answer Your Questions - Part 2

Part 2 of my answers to christiananswers.net's 44 Questions for the Yet-to-be-a-Believer. Part 1 is here.

4. How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?

There are two ways this question could be answered. One would be to demonstrate that, similarities aside, the differences between many of the known versions of the manuscripts should be worrying enough as to render laughable the concept of Biblical inerrancy. The other way would be to point out that the premise of the question is based on the non-sequitur that a greater number of corresponding texts somehow implies reliability. If that were the case, the Christian New Testament could be seen as less valid than the pre-Christian Old Testament, implying that Judaism is more correct than Christianity.

I also wonder what is meant by "originals" in the question?

5. Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?

I'm not sure whether this question is intended to ask whether I can live in a consistent manner baring in mind the worldview I have, or whether I can live in a way consistent with my worldview.

Either way, the answer is yes, thanks.

6. Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?

Would it make better sense to live in the pretense that a tyrannical, judgemental being in the sky watches my every move finding reasons to condemn me to an eternity of pain unless I dedicate a certain amount of my time and effort to unreservedly thanking him and glorifying his name, rather than to live trying honestly to better understand the world through rationality and evidence, free from the disingenuous and useless dogma and misplaced certainty of an ancient 'revealed' text?

No, it would not.

7. In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to be God?

It seems odd that the Christian website is asking the atheist in what sense Jesus was a good man, since it is their premise that he was good, not mine. If Jesus was lying about being the son of God (the alternative being that such quotes were attributed to him by his chroniclers) it certainly raises the question of whether he was a conman or whether his claims of divinity were a product of delusion. Nevertheless, if the Biblical accounts of his life (beyond the claims of divinity, of course) are correct, and he did heal the sick, help the poor, preach compassion and love and defy some of the sillier Jewish rules, then it does sound like he was a good man. Although of course it is not my place to judge another man's worth - Judge not, that ye be not judged.

8. Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of Scripture?

Given that I have already rejected the idea that the scriptures are truthful, and the idea that Jesus was the son of God, the answer to this is evidently 'yes'.

9. If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the 'Good Book'?

This argument is based on the argumentum ad populum (or as I call it, the Elvis Fallacy after the claim of his 1959 album that 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong). The truth is that any number of people can be wrong. Before it was demonstrated to be otherwise, the whole population of the world thought the Sun revolved around the Earth, but of course this did not make it so. The number of people holding an opinion has no baring on its veracity.

Question 9 is followed by a couple of follow on questions, so I'll answer those too.

-Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired word at least 2600 times?

This question appeals to the same circular reasoning of question 3 which I answered in part 1. The implication is that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true. I could open up a new Word document now and copy and paste the words "This is the inspired word of God" 2600 times, print it out, get it bound, and then, by this logic, my magnum opus would have just as much claim to the divine well of truth as the Bible. Obviously, a book claiming something is not proof of that same book's claims.

Of course, this does not answer the question of whether I was aware of the number of times the Old Testament made claims of divine inspiration. I wasn't, but now I am. Thanks.

-Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?

This is really a re-assertion of the same fallacy as question 9. Once again, the number of people to buy a particular book does not make any difference to the truth of that book's contents.

However once again, I have not answered the question. Yes, I did know that.

Part 3 will follow soon...