@ Squeers

Pardon my absence.

"All teaching is preaching.
Why do they need the [religious] institution [of marriage]?
Sovereignty--no accountability--tends to tyranny and indifference"

I disagree.
Teaching and preaching are different words with distinct spelling because they represent different concepts. Teachers, if they are any good, can demonstrate that what they teach is true. Preachers can't.

No-one can be said to need marriage, but if they want it they should be able to have it. It is not a religious institution. Concepts of marriage pre-date all current religions. A wedding might be performed by a religious celebrant, but it means nothing until the relationship is registered with the government. Marriage is a societal instition. That secular celebrants can officiate in ceremonies carrying equal weight in the eyes of the law chucks your claim out the window.

If my children are not to have sovereignty over their reproductive biology, who will have a say in when they should become parents? You? The Roman Catholic Church? Please provide a model of how you think their access to birth control should work so I can compare your vision against my own.

While my pocket has gone cold, please don't feel you need to start pissing in it again.

On that note, don't try to use my being pissed off with you against me. Being angry is not inherently bad. If someone does something to make you angry, anger is justified. Anger, while neither fun nor pretty, has provided motivation to get some amazing things done. Ending slavery; women's suffrage; civil rights in the USA; all of these historical events featured people sufficiently pissed off with the status quo that they stood up for their rights or to defend the rights of others. If you want me to be less angry, do less to make me angry, you patronising and arrogant person.

Poirot,
What I'm suggesting is that Time Magazine has its own bias and interpretive slant.

Here's the Time version of what JP II said:

"... recognize that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis."

Here's the same thing from the Pope's address in the other article you supplied,

"... the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. "

and also gives it in French (perhaps what the pope actually said?), 
"... à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse."

I wouldn't say that the translations are significantly different. But I would be cautious about anything Time Magazine says. For instance, the same article also says that creationists in Alabama and Tennessee were having "battles against the teaching of evolution". From my memory of that era, that simply is not accurate. School boards in various states were trying open up discussion away from the dogmatic presentation of evolution.

Should science be taught as dogma?

Thanks for the Chris Mulherin quote, DdeM – more interesting than other lists I'd seen, like this one...

1, You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One. 2, Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying. 3, In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different. 4, There Are Good People On Both Sides. 5, Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them. 6, We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy. 7, We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too. 8, Focusing On Negative Examples Makes You Stupid. 9, Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table. 10, You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out Of Existence.

Does this work as a counterpoint?

"I've heard a diversity of opinion, and one doesn't need to have an extreme or literal view of evolution to doubt the Bible.
The evidence is hardly overwhelming. It's more dependent on philosophical assumptions."

Your question, "Should science be taught as dogma?" Is easily answered dogmatically… Science should be taught as science. Also, religious dogma should not be taught as science. But, religious dogma should be taught as religious dogma.

I might even agree with… "The Catholic or any other church should not be aiming at credibility, they should be aiming for truth."

[Imagine how much more difficult it would be if it was subjective and not absolute.]

But I've got to wonder whether after more than 2000 years of contemplation they're getting closer or further away?

G'day Dan,
I would certainly agree that “science” should not be taught as dogma, or even aspects of scientific enquiry. That would be unscientific.
Science, or simple rationality is about accepting that which works, is testable, and is predictive, and rejecting that which doesn't work, isn't testable, and isn't predictive.
Science demands that when a theory is disproven (Earth is flat, sun revolves around Earth) it be rejected.
Evolutionary theory has proven so much more useful (roughly 100%) in so many fields than the religious alternative (prayer), that even -as has been pointed out-, a large (overwhelming) number of religious scientists and thinkers use and accept it.

I really don't think either you or runner could possibly seriously reject the 'theory' of evolution, when it is observed and used so much by so many, for so long. I think you are simply rejecting evolutionary history; the idea that just because it works today, doesn't mean it can offer a complete explanation of how life began and has continued.
At least, I certainly hope that's the case.
As far as teaching goes, evolution is a marvellous learning tool. It can be discussed, experimented with, tested, explored... There are, and will always continue to be I think, a number of alternative theories to classical Darwinian evolution, for instance.
Not the 'What', mind you; that's pretty much universally accepted. Just the 'Why' and the 'how'.
Creationism, OTOH, I think would be a very short course.
“God did it”.
Do not argue, do not discuss, just believe and shut up.
That's dogma.

Diver Matt,

It's true, strictly, that all teaching is preaching, in that an authority figure dispenses value-laden learning among his equally prejudiced/delimited charges. Objectivity is unattainable.
I support gay marriage, though I'm indifferent to it. According to queer theory gay marriage is a way to reconstruct discursive formations and compromise hegemony. I support "this". In practice, however, the push is overwhelmingly driven by your kind of "puerile" libertarianism, rather than commitment to addressing real injustice and inequality. Puerile libertarians, as distinct from "purists", are those who ingenuously forward neoliberal ideology with their callow/zealous infatuation for "freedom" (hilarious). I suspect Dawkins is similarly ingenuous in his ardour, but his implicit imperialism is yet more despicable, in that he's supposed to be intelligent and his want of self-reflexivity is damnable.
The idea of individual "sovereignty" is delusional libertarianism, notwithstanding it's the West's unofficial religion. I'm pro-choice but I'm also for social accountability. I've expressed my views on the topic here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13262&page=0#230146

But my little epigrams were based on this: <In short, I want my children to go to school without interference from preachers, to be able to marry whom they wish, and to have sovereignty over their reproductive biology>

I'm against proselytising at school too, but it's miniscule and I'm much more concerned about other institutionalising effects.

Yes, let them marry who they wish (yawn).

They "do" have sovereignty over their "reproductive biology", but we live in a society whose ethics haven't yet been reduced to the indifferent dictates of the free market, wherein individuals and groups in our "society" are entitled to differ on the vexed idea of the sanctity of life.

So, apropos my original question, <Can I ask you to expand a little on what these goals are>
..is this all you pompous twits have going for you?

I don't give a toss about your anger, you tosser. Or anything you've got to say, unless you've got something shrewder than this.

Here's a brief insight into the thinking of two Catholic astronomers working at the Vatican Observatory. They are scientist-clerics and find no opposition between their faith and science. To them, the 'whats and 'hows' of science are equally important as the 'whys' of theology and philosophy.

"....Faith is one way of being in contact with God, and certainly the reflection on faith, which is theology. The reflection and understanding of our world - science - is another way of approaching the truth..."
http://www.australiancatholics.com.au/content/view/243/