Dan,
>>In the last few hundred years, no church that I know of, Catholic or Protestant, has made any significant pronouncements about evolution. At most, they’ve made some comments on the periphery <<

Benedict XVI in July 2007 (http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/397/440/2722/2/1):

"Presently I see in Germany, and also in the United States, a fairly bitter debate between so-called creationism and evolutionism, presented as if they were mutually exclusive alternatives: whoever believes in a Creator cannot believe in evolution, and likewise whoever believes in evolution has to exclude God…This opposition is an absurdity, because on the one hand, there are many scientific proofs in favor of an evolution that seems to be a reality that we have to see, and that enriches our understanding of life and of existence as such. But the doctrine of evolution does not respond to all questions, above all to the great philosophical questions: Where does everything come from? How did everything start on the path that finally arrived at humanity?"

Although this is not a pronouncement ex cathedra (like an encyclical), nobody, especially no Catholic, would call the words of the Pope as being “on the periphery” of Catholic beliefs/opinions, even if he/she might disagree.

Squeers,
I have learned French, however I cannot understand the French and they cannot understand me. My experience with post-modernism is somehow similar, but I am trying my best to understand you.

You mention Richard Rorty’s “truth is created not found”, which, of course, is all right, if you accordingly define “truth”. Lately I have known Rorty also as the refuge of some ex-marx-leninst philosophers, who after 1989 had to continue to make their living by teaching philosophy at East-Central European universities, where marx-leninism lost its monopoly. My own interpretation of their choice was - admittedly an oversimplification - that when “dialectical materialism” cannot be maintained as an absolute truth, then better redefine the concept of truth. (ctd.)

(ctd.)
I remember you were aware of the “science wars” and the “Sokal hoax”, so maybe you know also of this: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99nov/9911sciencewars.htm.

There Rorty expresses some peculiar ideas (seen as such not only from my point of view but also by e.g. the physicist Steven Weinberg), however, I was most surprised by his implicit support of Bruno Latour, who is the author of the following two (and other) gems:

“Provided the two relativities (special and general) are accepted, more frames of reference with less privilege can be accessed, reduced, accumulated and combined, observers can be delegated to a few more places in the infinitely large (the cosmos) and the infinitely small (electrons), and the readings they send will be understandable. His (Einstein’s) book could well be titled: “New Instructions for Bringing Back Long-Distance Scientific Traveler … Who is going to benefit from sending all these delegated observers to the embankment, trains, rays of light, sun, nearby stars, accelerated lifts …? If relativism is right, only one of them (that is, the enunciator Einstein …) will be able to accumulate in one place (his laboratory, his office) the documents, reports and measurements sent back by all his delegates.”

“Did we teach Einstein anything? … My claim would be that, without the enunciator’s position (hidden in Einstein’s account), and without the notion of centers of calculation, Einstein’s own technical argument is ununderstandable.”

Both quoted in Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont, Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals Abuse of Science, Picador 1998, p. 127 & 131, including an explanation of what Einstein’s theory is actually about.

Well, there are many things I do not understand, but I would not make my ignorance public so explicitly. Did Rorty know of Latour’s embarrassing excursions into physics?

You love these throwaway lines, don't you Dan S de Merengue

>>By contrast, much in modern biology was and is being discovered and applied by creationists.<<

Would you care to back up that statement?

On "the other thread" you claimed that:

>>It should thus not be surprising, although it is for many people, that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive<<

When challenged, it turns out that you were not actually talking about Creationists, who by your own definition are people who accept "...Genesis as history, with a relatively young earth, global flood, and all humans descending from Adam and Eve, etc."

Instead, you broaden the field to unclude any professed Christian, irrespective of their - unknown - views on Adam and Eve. Your justification for this is simply that in order to be a Christian, you need to "believe" the Bible.

Which, in your quieter moments, you must realize is a somewhat circular, and entirely unsatisfactory, argument.

And I notice that you have started to focus on "neo-Darwinism". Does this mean you have given up attacking Darwin's basic concepts, and have decided instead to exploit the fact that fewer people understand the development of theories that synthesise genetics and evolution?

Because I have to say, your attempts to simplify those ideas into sound-bites are little more than crude diversionary tactics.

>>What we are left with is equivocation on the meaning of the word evolution.<<

Only in your mind, Dan S de Merengue.

Further notes to the subject of Death.
The Bible being the authority accepted by creationists says, Adam's body was made of the very same substance as the dust from the field (Gen 2: 7 the word "Adam" means red earth). The very fact that he ate lesser organic cell structures before (see Gen 1: 29) and after being cast out of heaven (the presence of God) Gen 3: 18b; indicated that he was always subject to the very same organic decay inherent in living cells. He needed to absorb nourishment for energy and renewal for the depleting cells of his body. However I believe the eating of the moral fruit in the Garden of God is allegorical, that is of a spiritual nature and the text of the garden story as allegory. The eating of the fruit that gives moral enlightenment was not literal fruit, or the opening of their eyes (Gen 3: 5) did not refer to natural sight but to spiritual enlightenment. The death they suffered on that day was not organic but spiritual. They were no longer innocent but guilty of violating their image of God.

As Genesis 2: 17 says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that you shall eat of it, you shall die". I ask the question: In the terms of Genesis 2: 17 "in the day" - when did Adam die and what was the nature of this death we inherited mentioned in Romans 5: 12 - 21, and what is the nature of the life we now receive from Christ? That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit (John 3: 6).

Ageing and Death like life is an important process installed by our designer.

Our bodies are part of a natural organic chemical world, subject to its valence features. Every system of the body is set to replentish life for a period, and is according to Ecclesiastes 3: 1 - 15 is set in place by God for a season.

The respiratory system inhales essential oxygen and exhales spent CO2. The digestive system is set to absorb nutrement for energy and cell renewal and excreates waste. The circulatory system is set to reach and feed and renew every cell in the body and expire waste. The nervous system is for self presevation against pain, injury or premature death. The reproductive system is set to replace the whole body in a new independent body. This indicates that from the very beginning the nature of decay and death is part of the organic design.

Contrary to six day creationists view - Organic Death is part of the original design and is good creation. Their problem is: "How can a good God allow organic death?"

Well said Pericles.

Philo

I shouldn't need to point out to you after all this time on OLO, that quoting from a collection of old myths is neither evidence nor convincing to those who understand science that creationism has any relevance apart from being a 'dream-time' tale. You may as well quote from Tolkien.