Welsh prelate backs Scottish abortion stance

The Roman Catholic Archbishop for Cardiff has backed the stance of Cardinal O’Brien on communion, abortion and politicians.

  • kensei

    “Ah, but their reaction is not “indignant,” it is irrational. If Evolution, as you seem to suggest, is simply the best available hypothesis, why not throw a sop to the alternate theories and move along? That would at least be a show of confidence, as opposed to the screaming meemies we hear about.”

    Because Intelligent Design is not science. The usefulness of any scientific theory is not in explaining anything. It is usefulness is in making predictions that can be tested, which you can predict future behaviour and apply that knowledge for x application. A combination of evolutionary and genetic theory allows that.

    What predicts does ID allow you to make?

  • Sam Hanna

    “Because Intelligent Design is not science. The usefulness of any scientific theory is not in explaining anything. It is usefulness is in making predictions that can be tested, which you can predict future behaviour and apply that knowledge for x application. A combination of evolutionary and genetic theory allows that.

    What predicts does ID allow you to make?”

    Science is not simply about predicting the future. Organic chemistry structures have nothing to do with predictions as to the future.

    Could you explain why we use ID logic in archaeology, anthropology, forensics,criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law,reverse engineering,crypto-analysis, random number generation, and even to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) etc if it is not “science”?

  • Sam Hanna

    “Your “objective source” has been edited for political and editorial content on several occasions by individuals who did not have “objectivity” in their vocabulary, let alon foremost in their mind when doing their cut and paste work on the document in question. Books were added and deleted as necessary to fit the whims of those in power, initially in positions of religious influence, but later, for political purposes, such as to prop up the notion of the “Divine Right” of kings.”

    Dread Cthulhu, I never responded to this because it required no response. You have taken a few historical excerpts by sceptics and thrown them into the mix. I have studied in some detail how we got our Bible so am quite happty to engage you on any fallacious conspiracy theories that its translators or writers were supposed to be engaged in. Please provide evidence but don’t waste time rehashing some old liberals arguments like Dawkins does without checking your sources.