Two Quotes

by Brian on February 5, 2006

A couple of unrelated thoughts as we wait for the Superbowl parties to start…

First, in response to the latest news about Australian bribes being paid to the old Iraq regime, Alexander Downer had this to say about the mistaken views of us anti-war types.

If Mr Rudd and Mr Beazley … had had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, the rorts and the corruption would still be taking place, the Palestinian suicide bombers would still be financed by Saddam Hussein – all of that has come to an end.

In other words, we had to go invade Iraq because that damn Saddam wouldn’t stop taking our bribes. And anyone who thinks this wasn’t the best way to stop the Australian Wheat Board bribing Saddam is a suicide bombing loving hippie.

On a happier note, here’s a very interesting speech on science and religion by Father Gregory Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. Read the whole thing, as they say, but here’s one salient quote.

How are we to interpret the scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief. Do we need God to explain this? Very succinctly my answer is no. In fact, to need God would be a very denial of God. God is not the response to a need. One gets the impression from certain religious believers that they fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God. This is the exact opposite of what human intelligence is all about. We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation. We should not need God; we should accept her/him when he comes to us.

HT: Prosblogion



Martin James 02.05.06 at 6:04 pm

How odd it is that even among critics of intelligent design, we still have so many believers in “uncaused beliefs”.

What is a theistic implication that Coyne can know that science is neutral regarding it?

Why does this Intelligent Design ghostbuster still believe in ghosts?

What is intelligent design other than a result of the operation of the universe?

Why do people who profess to understand evolution think that evolution does not explain the exact mix that exists of believers in intelligent design and unbelievers in intelligent design.

Why do they believe, like Gregory Coyne, that “what is” is neutral with respect to what “ought to be”?

Obviously, because that is how they have evolved.


Tad Brennan 02.05.06 at 6:15 pm

Bloke’s name is George V. Coyne, not Gregory.


Colin Danby 02.05.06 at 7:48 pm

Thanks for the second link. Father Coyne is especially clever to approach the issue via the stellar origins of the matter we see around us, which has to be one of the most elegant and powerful of all scientific insights. Once you see that it’s hard not to think in terms of long periods of time, and to understand how certain kinds of complexity arise.

Comments on this entry are closed.