Pope defends Evolution; What else is new...

Full Article

Some highlights...

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”

Though not necessarily a revelation for some religious figureheads to proclaim so-called respect towards evolution, it is not such a impressive concession considering that the religious probably know as much about their own faiths as they do about real science.

You can't have it both ways.

It is one thing to say that science does not answer our origins. It possibly cannot. But still, to just glaze over it and say, "well, it must be God," is such an incredible gap of logic that science simply is not prepared to make, and thus, earning my respect.

Of course, no practicing theologists will be able to explain where god comes from, thus making their "origins" point mute. This is to say nothing of the incredible intricacies of religious belief and the church itself, the sheer egoism of believing in the correct deity and knowing what that deity wants and doesn't want.

It is a silly admission, in the end, because the religious will never give science the credit it deserves, or really seem to provide signs of a real understanding of how science utterly demolishes theism over and over again. Their faith is a comfort blanket that they cannot rid of, no matter how unnecessary.

(And may I speculate that the real reason for all this talk of fusing religion with science is merely a conversion strategy for the more reason-minded individuals.)

Circumcision is Mutilation.

A post title you probably weren't expecting, but nonetheless, onward with conscience-raising! A question I pose to others when I'm feeling saucy, particularly those yet childless, is the following: Will you circumcise your children?

It's almost as off-putting as asking someone if you are a registered organ donor. There probably is not a single good reason why wouldn't donate organs, and yet, some won't do it. I've heard rather interesting explanations for this, none that made a lick of sense, and most involve some sort of zombie after-life I cannot comprehend.

And so it goes for circumcision, which is, in effect, legalized, involuntary mutilation which provides not a speck of scientific or otherwise social relevance. It's not something we talk about in casual conversation, and yet the vast majority of us American males have had the privilege of entering this world of ours to a steel blade, to have a piece of our otherwise "perfectly" designed body removed--for what reasoning?

The science is in: there is no justifiable health benefit. Simply google "Doctors Against Circumcision" and read away if you aren't convinced. I won't comment further on this point, other than say that the "inconveniences" of a foreskin, as some claim, are no more off-putting than the need to wash your underarm. And it's certainly true that we might avoid a lot of maintenance if we simply removed the hair from our bodies. Fortunately for us, our hair can grow back if we've had enough.

What other reason, perhaps? It may come as a surprise that a good deal of our sacred texts (Galatians, etc.) are devoted to the principle and execution of circumcision in accordance with our celestial dictator who would like nothing more than to create your foreskin, and then symbolically (and physically) command it removed in order to create a psychological state of submission and perverted perspective of sexuality. I can't say this is something that might be useful to a god who considered your body his creation and wanted his creation to be fruitful. It might, however, be very useful to the men who really made it up. (...but why these men, and some Jews today, wish to take their newly circumcised sons into their mouth, I will never have a good answer.)

And some, including the great faith of Islam, have pondered, why leave the fun for just men? Let's just slice off all of the female genitalia we can get to, tie it up with string and call it a day.

Perhaps George Carlin is correct in saying that "symbols" are for the "simple" minded. But a circumcised penis is in fact, a symbol. But not for great scientific advancements or social enlightenment. It is, in fact, a physical casualty of the total ignorance of a culture riddled with obscene faith-based philosophy.