I never "disowned" that my analogy referred to you, oblique or otherwise (I thought it was rather direct). It referred to you in the sense that it analogized the fruitlessness of having a discussion with you. The problem is that you took it to be a direct comparison of physical attribute, something that I most certainly did not intend.
For the record, I do not believe that you are now, or ever have been, a pig.
Which brings us to a sense of humor. A sense of humor and perspective is quite handy in rhetorical argument. It often prevents things from coming to blows. It also aids a person in keeping an open mind, vice simply waiting for the other person to stop talking, so that the next attack can be commenced.
I believe that good, but misguided men, and bad yet deceptive men, have acted in the name of the Church to visit much harm on people. However, taken in whole, the Church has had a civilizing effect on the world. I do not find the failure of the church to make men Godly, as the failure of the institution that you do. To me, you are doing the equivalent of blaming the Founding Fathers because FDR put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. I see the Church as the Constitution in this sense. An ideal, which is sometimes failed by men. I don't think the answer to FDR's questionable action is to disavow the Constitution, which is what I perceive your approach to the Church is.
I would caution you that "historical facts" are nefarious for their frailty. High school history is packed with accepted facts, which didn't really occur, but have been retold through so many generations that they have simply taken on a life of their own. Winston Churchill referred to this humorously in his, "History of the English Speaking Peoples v.I." In reference to King Arthur's existence he summed with, "Its true, its all true, or it aught to be! And more and better besides." His point (in context) was that the acceptance of King Arthur as real during the Middle Ages tremendously affected that period's history, regardless of its eventual truth.
As there is no doubt of brutalities committed by Catholics, Protestants, etc. There is equally no doubt of the gross exaggerations which followed. Fledgling history students regularly fall into the trap of taking contemporary records as "the facts". The falsity of this is exhibited in "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" and the "Carolingian Chronicles". By the Frankish count, they killed ten times as many Saxons as there were in existence.
The depth, or lack of, Christianity is also missed. Conversion was not overnight. Yet school books will refer to Christian Europe during periods when Christians were definitely the minority, and segments of Christian kingdoms were still pagan. Yet all actions are portrayed as those of Christians.
This thread is on ID versus Darwin's theory of evolution. I'm not too versed on ID, but I do think Darwin's theory has been debunked as a complete answer, and likewise validated as occurring. The fossil record shows spurts of tremendous creation unsupported by slow evolution or observable patterns of mutation. I haven't heard a good explanation for this, and I'm unsure of what "threat" exists from ID. It was my point that scientists are too quick to reject ideas. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that you wouldn't have to believe in God or ID to listen to a theory that some process has rapidly created new life at various times outside the explanation provided by Darwin or mutation. It doesn't seem that hard to accept dark matter based solely on observation of its effects.
For about 1400 years, repeatedly, because, as I pointed out, central catholic doctrine, particularly regarding jewish beliefs, promotes it.
However, taken in whole, the Church has had a civilizing effect on the world.
Well, that's a commonly expressed theory, perhaps we should ask Galileo. I thought the iron maiden and the thumbscrew were particularly inventive civilizing tools, and I must say I really appreciate the civilized and merciful treatment that witches were afforded following the publication of the Hammer of Witches, and that jews, albigensians and moslems were afforded during the crusades.
Some serial killers are known to have been good fathers. Do you think they should have been therefore exhonerated?
The catholic church recently issued a long-winded apology called "We Remember" regarding amongst other things, the Inquisition, and the persecution of jews. The fact that some persecutions were falsely attributed to the church does not exhonorate it for the persecutions it did commit, which are both extensive, and publicly acknowledged by the church.
The depth, or lack of, Christianity is also missed. Conversion was not overnight. Yet school books will refer to Christian Europe during periods when Christians were definitely the minority, and segments of Christian kingdoms were still pagan. Yet all actions are portrayed as those of Christians.
All of the inquisition was an action of the church, all of the Hammer of Witches, was issued by the church. The drowning of the Anabaptist children was personally supervised by the Pope.
Darwin went out of his way to point out that Darwinian evolutionary theory could in no manner address the question of life's origins--there is no point in debunking something that doesn't exist.
The fossil record shows spurts of tremendous creation unsupported by slow evolution or observable patterns of mutation. I haven't heard a good explanation for this,
That's because none is needed, just as you don't need to see a galaxy in every corner of the intersteller void to conclude that gravity is a universal force. That's because we reason about things by induction, and don't need to see every possible example before we draw an inductive conclusion. Thousands of supposed gaps in the fossil record have been filled, and when filled, the fill-ee has turned out to be morphologically continuous with the two species on either side of the gap. This has not prevented creationists from blithly assuming that all we've created is two new gaps. Creationists generally work pretty hard not to understand that inductive reasoning, imperfect as it is, is how science does its work.
and I'm unsure of what "threat" exists from ID.
It's not a threat. It could be true; probably is, in fact, in some manner. However, it is not remotely science, any more than astrology, which could be true, or UFOlogy, which could be true, are sciences. The threat is from creationists, who have a painfully obvious ax to grind, who want to use the science classroom to teach something other than science. Scientists naturally don't care to much for that, much in the same vain as good english teachers don't care too much about having eubonics and phonics taught as a viable alternative to grammar and spelling in english class.
It was my point that scientists are too quick to reject ideas. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that you wouldn't have to believe in God or ID to listen to a theory that some process has rapidly created new life at various times outside the explanation provided by Darwin or mutation.
I don't think you understand this situation very well. Scientists are quicker than any other group on the planet to entertain bizarre new ideas. Including literally dozens that have been proposed to account for discrepencies in chronology that have been turning up in the molecular mutational clock-of-all-species. Many of them more entertaining and/or far-fetched than ID. Serious books about panspermia, the nephew of ID, have been written by no less than two Nobel scientists, independently. However, scientists are also aware that science is a disciplined fraternity with necessary entry requirements, not a mardi gras party. And micro-biology and paleontology have met the requirements, ID not so much. If you want to teach ID in sociology class, or art class, feel free. If you want to hold a science class at a school my child must attend, I'd very much appreciate it if you would only teach him what science believes in science class.