tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post6412494045216934781..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Are feminists at war with their own biology?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger507125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-29009291787527208592011-09-07T20:10:25.754-07:002011-09-07T20:10:25.754-07:00Your analogy does not work. Letting muscles become...Your analogy does not work. Letting muscles become weak is not the same as chopping off an arm or poisoning those muscles so that they <i>do not work</i> as designed.<br /><br />Unless a philosopher is paralyzed, I believe he still has use of his arms and is grateful for that. And if he needed to fight, he would. <br /><br />Now, the only analogy that might work is that a woman chooses to use NFP to postpone pregnancy. That can be quite legitimate. But to say that we don't know the purpose of a uterus is ridiculous. There is only one purpose.<br /><br />Single women who choose career (or religious vocation) over motherhood can certainly do that. But sex is the very thing that produces human babies (I know that people on the left are shocked, <i>shocked</i> I tell you! when we say that sex makes babies. How that can be, I'll never know. It's pretty basic biology, and yet they deny it.) <br /><br /><i>she might feel this way because you've told her so -- specifically, because you've mocked, as wrong-headed, the idea that her own self-determination should ever take precedence over reproduction.</i><br /><br />This makes me believe that you have never actually read any Catholic teaching on human sexuality, such as Theology of the Body. Have you read any? <br /><br />Basically, the Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is about human dignity. We don't mutilate and surgically derail our working bodies or deny the transcendent meaning of our reproductive systems or kill our own offspring, so that we can do whatever the heck we feel like. I mean, I guess we <i>can</i> act in such a way, but who the heck thinks that's a higher way to live?<br /><br />I personally love being a woman, and I am very comfortable with my body just as it was so beautifully and perfectly designed, thank you. :)<br /><br />Why do you think there is something wrong with women's bodies?<br /><br />Come back after you have read some Theology of the Body and then we can talk some more.<br /><br />I recommend:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Body-Beginners-Introduction-Revolution/dp/1934217859/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315451390&sr=1-3Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-70345890582203770352011-09-04T10:00:26.554-07:002011-09-04T10:00:26.554-07:00Is a man born with a grenade launcher attached to ...<i>Is a man born with a grenade launcher attached to his body? Or a gun affixed to his fingers? </i><br /><br />No, but he is born with a strong upper body, a high level of testosterone (making him likelier than a woman to be territorial and aggressive), and narrow hips and long legs for quick movement. I'm sure you wouldn't deny that military conquest/defense, and "fighting" in general, are traditionally male roles and that a man's biology equips him to fulfill these. But if a man chooses to let his muscles atrophy, spend his life indoors and dedicate himself to something like philosophy or art, these choices don't incite suspicion or contempt and are not called "unnatural." This is because we recognize (at least with respect to men) that the brain is an important organ, too. But if a woman chooses a career over child-rearing, she is "denying her own biology." Right. <br /><br /><i>If you read feminist lit and theory, it is actually woman's biology which oppresses her </i><br /><br />I don't know what feminist theory you've been reading, but a much more common trope in my experience is that social norms and institutions (including many religious institutions) are responsible for this. There were plenty of ancient societies (notably ancient Egypt) where women held positions of significant power and esteem. Some feminists blame womens' subsequent subjugation entirely on Christianity, which is stupid. But there is a grain of truth to what they say.<br /><br /><i>The only reason any woman who has babies feels like a "baby factory" is because the feminists have told her so.</i><br /><br />Or perhaps she might feel this way because you've told her so -- specifically, because you've mocked, as wrong-headed, the idea that her own self-determination should ever take precedence over reproduction.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15121012588013716504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-43196948934034306922011-09-02T22:49:05.199-07:002011-09-02T22:49:05.199-07:00Pregnancy/childbirth is one capability of a woman&...<i>Pregnancy/childbirth is one capability of a woman's body, just as war is one capability of a man's. </i><br /><br />I'm sorry, but I don't see the analogy. Is a man born with a grenade launcher attached to his body? Or a gun affixed to his fingers? War machinery is a part of his very anatomy, intrinsic to his nature?<br /><br />The only reason any woman who has babies feels like a "baby factory" is because the feminists have told her so. If you read feminist lit and theory, it is actually woman's biology which oppresses her and keeps her from being "equal" to a man in the economic sphere. <br /><br />That is why her <i>healthy</i> fertility and natural body mechanisms have to be "medicated" and "fixed" (as if there is something wrong with the design of a woman's body!). The "problem" of her body and biology is also why 53 million "mistakes" growing in the womb have had to be killed in the past 4 decades. Denying our bodies, distorting healthy function, and shredding our children in our wombs so that we can "decide our own purpose" in life seems wrong-headed to me.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63842098992955919312011-09-02T04:53:04.533-07:002011-09-02T04:53:04.533-07:00Most of us see a difference between made to and bi...Most of us see a difference between <i>made to</i> and <i>biologically equipped to</i>. Pregnancy/childbirth is one capability of a woman's body, just as war is one capability of a man's. That doesn't mean men should be treated as war drones or women as baby factories, and that doesn't mean that a man who declines to spear an enemy or a woman who declines to bear children have denied their "purpose" in life. There is much more dignity in letting individuals decide their own purpose, an allowance we've granted men for centuries. Feminists aren't idiots who deny biology -- they're just optimists who hope women can be accorded the same respect.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15121012588013716504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-26653079386975706812011-08-25T11:05:23.161-07:002011-08-25T11:05:23.161-07:00Anonymous… right, because the other value and purp...Anonymous… right, because the <i>other</i> value and purpose for the uterus is….?<br /><br /><i>You can't just claim to know biologies purpose for our body parts.</i> <br /><br />Riiiight. I pity the foolish cardiologist who "claims to know" that the purpose of our hearts is to pump blood. Or the gastroenterologist who "claims to know" that the stomach exists to digest food. The nerve! The presumption.<br /><br />Anonymous can you tell me your age?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-5506953069058491052011-08-25T10:57:03.083-07:002011-08-25T10:57:03.083-07:00I have a problem with the fact that since you can ...I have a problem with the fact that since you can find a purpose for something, the most OBVIOUS purpose of it, that you believe that that is its main and sole purpose.<br /><br />Basically,personally, YOU are valuing the uterus for its child-bearing capabilities. Fine. That's YOUR opinion. Leave it up to others to see the value of their own bodies. <br /><br />You can't just claim to know biologies purpose for our body parts. <br />And if you do claim to know the purpose of our body parts, riddle me the purpose of male nipples.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-11186907938898184272011-05-21T00:56:50.128-07:002011-05-21T00:56:50.128-07:00Feminism is just another socio-economic bubble tha...Feminism is just another socio-economic bubble that is about to burst. When this mega-bubble bursts it will cause a complete breakdown of lifestyles and so called independent living.<br />No jobs=no money=no independence=collapse of feminism bubble=societal collapse as we know it. <br />This is not rocket science...it is just common sense which is hard to find in human beings particularly females.<br />They will only learn their lessons the hard way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-28282967962012228602011-05-12T09:40:41.501-07:002011-05-12T09:40:41.501-07:00Stacy...I am not meaning to be mean...sorry it cam...Stacy...I am not meaning to be mean...sorry it came out so harsh...really...just snappy today in several ways, totally apologize for the tone of my remark...did not feel so snarky on the first go...<br />I will get back to both of you as soon as I get some uninterrupted time, but the book by Kenneth Miller is a MUST READ for any Catholic. Absolutely. No questions. I am utterly amazed as well, because he has the guts to admit to his students (if asked) that he does believe in God. Biological science does not get any more current or more respected than his... <br /><br />I will get back to Stacy and Leila though...but really!!!! Read his book. A lot of libraries have it. I did in fact watch Demographic Winter at your nudging, and I learned something (but had some serious criticisms) so please go find this book. You too Guiseppe. Peter, ever heard of it or him? He wrote the Miller Levine text.Marynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-60618798659133854002011-05-12T07:11:57.683-07:002011-05-12T07:11:57.683-07:00Mary, that confuses me so much. So, Kenneth Miller...Mary, that confuses me so much. So, Kenneth Miller rejects ID entirely. So, what or who is God? I don't get it. God did not create us? Did not make us in His image? Didn't design anything? What is his role? And why do we "seem" to have a design? Help me understand because I cannot wrap my brain around that...Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-23535639770805610232011-05-12T07:11:20.931-07:002011-05-12T07:11:20.931-07:00OK, explain it like I'm a dummy then Mary.
Pl...OK, explain it like I'm a dummy then Mary.<br /><br />Please lay out for me the scientific evolutionary process, including molecular mechanisms, that led you to write, "THIS IS THE DEBATE I WAS LOOKING FOR!" I must have been lost the day of that class.<br /><br />Remember, science only can comment on what is observable and quantifiable.Stacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-46496469356163663452011-05-12T05:42:05.271-07:002011-05-12T05:42:05.271-07:00Just coming back after being away. THIS IS THE DE...Just coming back after being away. THIS IS THE DEBATE I WAS LOOKING FOR! <br /><br />First: Stacy, you said, "Evolutionary theory cannot explain why we humans theorized evolutionary theory. Think about that carefully." I am very surprised any scientist would ever say that. I am sorry to sound harsh, but that is just a gaping and stunning wound in my esteem of your scientific thought processes. The evolution of pattern recognition in cognition would be selected for as an adaptation. Theorizing evolution is nothing more than an advanced form of pattern recognition.<br /><br />Read FINDING DARWIN'S GOD by Kenneth Miller. In fact, everyone must read this. He is a foremost authority in Biology, has written the textbooks used in biology classes worldwide and....ready for this.....is a practicing theist! But...he rejects all forms of Intelligent Design without reservation. Read it..It should be required reading for all theists.<br /><br />MaryMarynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-90774762631434434512011-05-08T14:20:15.654-07:002011-05-08T14:20:15.654-07:00Peter, I'm not talking about intolerance. Ever...Peter, I'm not talking about intolerance. Every group experiences intolerance. I'm talking about torturous, murderous reactions. Every one of the first several popes, for example, knew that they would be put to death and and they were.<br /><br />But you basically miss the point. Christians didn't die for a really cool leader (remember, St. Peter and the others were NOT willing to die for Christ before the resurrection). Christians also didn't die for a great philosophy, or a nation or a tribe, or anything like that. They died because <i>Christ rose bodily from the dead</i>. No other reason. And if they <i>knew</i> He didn't rise, then they died for a lie, and no one does that.<br /><br />Peter said: <i>Also, I do think there a certain implicit benefit to having a religion. It "soothes the ego" but assuring it an everlasting life and constant forgiveness. Those are strong ideas, and I think passionate people would be willing to die for them.</i><br /><br />But again, you miss the point. Unless they saw that Jesus rose, they would never have believed any of this "everlasting life" stuff, much less died for it. No one would be willing to die for a guy who said he was God and then was killed in front of everyone and rotted in the ground.<br /> <br /><i>Can a flawed human, as I'm sure we all are, truely write the true Word of God??</i><br /><br />You mean, could the God of the universe, who created everything from nothing, and who created man himself, preserve man from error when writing or teaching in His name? Yep, I think that's really no problem for Him.<br /><br />The originals are the ones which were infallibly written. The translations are authorized by the Church (which is protected by the Holy Spirit, not to teach error). Christ founded a Church. The Church gave us (and protects) the Scriptures. It's that simple.<br /><br /><i>How can the council that selectively picked the books have known which ones were the Word of God? </i><br /><br />Because the doctrine that Christ handed down was there before the New Testament was written. The Church canonized the books which were in harmony with the revealed Truth of Christ (Deposit of Faith). The books which were spurious (or too far removed from the time of Christ) were rejected. All was done under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who protects the Church from teaching error. Not protection from sin, protection from teaching error on matters of faith and morals.<br /><br /><i>Was Paul serious?! (1 Tim, 2:8-15)</i><br /><br />Why would he joke? What part specifically can't you believe? Be more specific, please.<br /><br /><i>If there is but one mistake, one falsity in the bible, wouldn't that negate its divinity? </i><br /><br />The Bible cannot contain error in issues of faith and morals. What falsity has the Church not found yet?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-65544712733082628892011-05-08T13:46:09.273-07:002011-05-08T13:46:09.273-07:00To be certain, Mormons dealt with a fair share of ...To be certain, Mormons dealt with a fair share of intolerance when they began. <br /><br />Also, I do think there a certain implicit benefit to having a religion. It "soothes the ego" but assuring it an everlasting life and constant forgiveness. Those are strong ideas, and I think passionate people would be willing to die for them. It's not so much that I think every religion is a hoax or lie (some probably are...). But while mormons and scientologists might be easy to dismiss, what do you make of the other major religions and their scriptures?<br /><br />As for the most recent Anon post... they brought in points I was waiting to make for later on your post regarding the resurrection. Can a flawed human, as I'm sure we all are, truely write the true Word of God?? Can translators effectively transmit it to a new language? How can the council that selectively picked the books have known which ones were the Word of God? Was Paul serious?! (1 Tim, 2:8-15) If there is but one mistake, one falsity in the bible, wouldn't that negate its divinity?Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63568006055799867392011-05-07T18:36:54.470-07:002011-05-07T18:36:54.470-07:00Thanks, Michelle! I think that's the crux of i...Thanks, Michelle! I think that's the crux of it. We Christians believe in spirit and matter, and we believe that a human being is both spirit and matter.<br /><br />Spirit can't be quantified, but is as real as matter.<br /><br />Thanks, it's a pleasure having these discussions with you!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-74092477143885588112011-05-07T17:19:38.697-07:002011-05-07T17:19:38.697-07:00I think you might have described our disagreement ...I think you might have described our disagreement on this perfectly - I can't see the designer or his interventions, so I'd have a really hard time believing in one. I know there is more to life than what can be quantified (at least, we haven't quantified those parts yet!), but it does make it tricky if by his nature God can't be observed! Hopefully you can sort of see why I have trouble with this, even if you totally disagree.<br /><br />Thanks for holding discussions like this - though I know I get irrationally snippy sometimes and I apologize for that, I truly appreciate the dialogue too, and I look forward to commenting on future posts! :)Michellenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-31273334002950904672011-05-07T16:59:21.941-07:002011-05-07T16:59:21.941-07:00Oh, my is this anonymous/Paul/Sam again? Please le...Oh, my is this anonymous/Paul/Sam again? Please let Peter answer for himself. He is a smart man, and we have a nice relationship based on mutual respect. Thanks!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-91189452419104177752011-05-07T16:53:51.528-07:002011-05-07T16:53:51.528-07:00Leila @ May 5, 2011 9:28 AM says
"before I r...Leila @ May 5, 2011 9:28 AM says<br /><br />"before I respond, you never answered: If the gospels did not have accounts of miracles, would you accept them as historical accounts?"<br /><br />First of all Peter deserves at least one thousand internets for carrying the discussion in the face of such opposition, which requires no further description.<br /><br />Second, some readers may recall an old story about a founding father of the United States cutting out all the miracles in the Bible, to make the document suitable for consumption by his children.<br /><br />Third, when we use the word "gospel," we mean (a good Greek-English dictionary will tell you) "good news." That the news in question is "good" is, of course, an interpretation. Gospels are therefore, by their own admission, interpretations and bring with them considerable license with respect to the modern idea of what constitutes historical fact.<br /><br />In short, the gospels, especially the four so-called canonical gospels, are not, and never claimed to be, historical documents. They are the "good news," the favorable interpretation of historical events, and may, with careful reading, be valuable to historians, but should probably not be revered as objective truth. Especially without consulting the hundreds of other equally contemporaneous and authentic gospels not currently included in the canon.<br /><br />Please do not bring up the ancient error that conflates the apostles with the authors of the gospels. Lots of people share names.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-82471494732067996362011-05-07T16:38:51.691-07:002011-05-07T16:38:51.691-07:00Peter, but wait… are you saying that Mormons or Sc...Peter, but wait… are you saying that Mormons or Scientologists are willing to die for something they know to be a hoax? Do they think their major tenet is a lie, which they concocted, and then they are willing to be tortured, beheaded, jailed, boiled in oil, drawn and quartered and fed to lions to perpetuate <i>what they know is a lie</i>?<br /><br />Help me out….Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-37483401331476490582011-05-07T16:18:32.544-07:002011-05-07T16:18:32.544-07:00Hi Peter! Mormonism and Scientology are very recen...Hi Peter! Mormonism and Scientology are very recent, new religions, and they are small. I wouldn't even call Scientology a religion? Not sure what it is. And do people die and get tortured for it by the millions? You'd have to fill me in on that.<br /><br />Mormonism is an offshoot of Protestantism. It's roots are Christian, and I am guessing they believe in the literal resurrection? That part is a-okay (though they have strayed on what the Trinity is!)<br /><br />The part that is strange about Mormonism and the first Mormons is that they seemed to believe one "vision" that one person had, privately, with no historical evidence, and no first hand evidence. This is quite different from the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection, by thousands of people who saw Jesus after He rose and <i>then</i> decided to believe, to the point of torture and death. I don't think you have the same dynamic with the small, newish group called Mormons.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-64748046838261816242011-05-07T16:06:19.090-07:002011-05-07T16:06:19.090-07:00what we see today looks designed
So, what we see ...<i>what we see today looks designed</i><br /><br />So, what we see in nature "looks" designed, but isn't designed? (Although the stuff we see in the human realm "looks" designed and is)?<br /><br />You don't "see" an actual intervention in nature because God is spirit… You can't "see" something that is invisible, by the way. I know you only believe in the world that can be weighed and measured, so I'm not sure you can say anything at all about God?<br /><br />Here's how I see faith and reason: Catholicism and science are not in contradiction. Here's how you see it: Catholicism and science <i>are</i> in contradiction. To Catholics, you see, truth is truth, and truth cannot contradict itself. As long as you stick to science, God cannot be "disproved". He surely can be seen as compatible with it, however.<br /><br />You are right, I think we are at an impasse. But I appreciate the dialogue and I hope others find it enlightening!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-34169041097863487442011-05-07T12:52:45.214-07:002011-05-07T12:52:45.214-07:00Leila, I think we are at an impasse, but that'...Leila, I think we are at an impasse, but that's okay. I knew from the start that we'd never agree on this, and of course, I wish there was something I could say that would help you really understand my perspective on this (something I have no doubt you've felt talking to me too)! <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdn0UPDjmk&feature=related" rel="nofollow">This video</a> explains issues with creationism/ID from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist. I don't expect it to change your mind, but hopefully it helps you understand a little better. :)<br /><br />I sort of see religion and science as fair-weather friends. From what I'd imagine, religion would quite happily accept science if it happened upon proof (or even a suggestion) that a god exists, and rightly so. If the religious community continued to reject that research as an infringement of science, it'd be consistent with their current position, but it'd seem ridiculous not to embrace the proof, right? I guess I'm just really having trouble drawing that line between religion and science - science's investigation of our origins necessarily leads to questions of a creator, I think, so...help?<br /><br />I think I'm also not quite understanding your questions about order and disorder. I don't see people or trees or birds forming spontaneously out of nothing, but as the result of incremental changes to extremely primitive cells over the course of billions of years. I don't think fully formed organisms ever arose out of chance, but that they formed very gradually. Because they are the result of trial and error, and only what worked/didn't cause harm stayed and developed, what we see today looks designed. To take your example of the building, if that alien were to really study the buildings' formation, they'd see that each stage of construction, intervention was required to put that beam there, route these wires here, etc. With evolution, we don't see that intervention, but natural selection instead (the <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/10/01/a-career-among-the-finches/" rel="nofollow">Grants' work with finches</a> is a great example). Does that make any more sense?Michellenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-27767158289956600642011-05-07T10:55:20.225-07:002011-05-07T10:55:20.225-07:00Joanna,
The video was funny! I never said Christi...Joanna,<br /><br />The video was funny! I never said Christianity is a conspiracy, but I understand why you posted it. And it begs the question:<br /><br />Do you guys think Mormonism is a conspiracy? What about Scientology?Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-15844684541806595022011-05-07T08:23:01.180-07:002011-05-07T08:23:01.180-07:00Just wanted to say real quick that it's absurd...<i>Just wanted to say real quick that it's absurd to differentiate between "atheistic" evolution and "theistic" evolution. There's evolution, and then there's arguments people make using it.</i><br /><br />I think I understand why you say this. Because science is just...evolution. What the Church means when it says what is quoted above is that for some, evolution has become more like a philosophy and is used to disprove God, thus becoming atheistic. But sticking to science strictly, the Church doesn't condemn evolution. It's just when people make atheistic arguments with the science and they end up hand in hand.Meg @ True, Good and Beautifulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10507070127764766394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-38525104405530726912011-05-07T08:09:53.718-07:002011-05-07T08:09:53.718-07:00Peter, congrats on the last day of classes! Do you...Peter, congrats on the last day of classes! Do you still have finals to do? If so, good luck! I was just dreaming about being back in college last night... ah, memories.<br /><br />By the way, I saw this last night and thought of you: <a href="http://youtu.be/5p9CY976_kw" rel="nofollow">http://youtu.be/5p9CY976_kw</a>JoAnna Wahlundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09942928659520676271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-48087635074701131542011-05-06T22:42:55.687-07:002011-05-06T22:42:55.687-07:00Leila,
I may have answered it before? I'm not...Leila,<br /><br />I may have answered it before? I'm not sure. Contemplating it... reading Gospel of John right now, and I'll keep it in the back of my mind. <br /><br />Just wanted to say real quick that it's absurd to differentiate between "atheistic" evolution and "theistic" evolution. There's evolution, and then there's arguments people make using it. Will say more later--was celebrating the last day of classes!<br />-PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com