It’s a funny old world. One must never, never, never read the comments of a news article, a newspaper opinion article, a youtube video, a post on a political blog (unless independently run and strictly moderated); even amazon and yelp reviews will mostly only serve to cause confusion and anguish (best to stick to the star rating and leave it at that).

But then you have places like io9, which posts articles like this: Does the new Pope believe in evolution? (read this to have to look up the word polygenism!)

And which gets comments like this one:

tak-kovacs Saturday 1:22pm

I am not a Christian, nor am I a believer; however, I feel that it is the reasoning in this article – which is typical of most anti-theistic arguments against the reconciliation of the coequal magisteria – that misses the point. The Catholic church’s – and again I must stress that I am neither a Christian nor a believer – stance on science is an exquisite balance of mystical and rational thought insofar as it insists on the existence as the source of creation a non-interventionist Creator who set in motion the universe and then left it to its own course of existence and evolution, allowing for particular outcomes and the freedom within that system for other outcomes. The doctrinal insistence on the part of the church that this Creator, God, be acknowledged is completely irrelevant to scientific pursuits, in marked contrast to fundamentalist insistence on the active influence of an interventionist God.

The logical error of all fundamentalists, be they Christian or Atheist, is an inability to acknowledge the value of mythocentric truth, that is, the non-literal, non-(NOT IRR-)rational. The rapacious need of Christian fundamentalists that the Bible be word for word literally true is born of this tendency of the last couple of centuries of Western thought that the only truth that matters is the logocentric, the literal, physical, rational truth. Therefore, to be of value to humanity, the Bible must be literally, physically, rationally true. It is important to note that this error of thought and logic is only a couple of centuries old in religion. Anti-theists make the same error.

In short, what difference does it make if one says God started a process if our investigation of that process is completely separate from and independent of that doctrinal insistence – as the Catholic church has tenaciously advocated for a century? Perhaps if we on the irreligious side of these issues could drop our own dogmatic doctrinal insistence on the absolute absence of any Creator, we could rob fundamentalists of the ammunition they use against us; most people believe in God and are uncomfortable with a complete rejection of the theistic, and are thus more sympathetic than they might otherwise be with fundamentalist morons. We push these more moderate people away, vigorously. Catholic doctrine on science offers us a way forward given the proclivity for humans to believe in God.

Honestly, why can’t the rest of the internet be more like that (not that, necessarily, all the comments are worth reading).