[ofwaihhbtn]

"Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence."

Isn't that the truth.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Evolution is compatible with Catholicism, I except though, that evolution is a theory - they should not be teaching it as fact, when it has yet to be proven!

[PatrickHenry]

Already posted: Finding Design in Nature.

[thejokker]

science does not try to explain away the apperance of design. god or a designer lies outside the realm of science; he cannot be observed or measured. science leaves to religon those questions...

[JoeFromSidney]

Fr. Stanley Jaki has written that Darwinian evolution is based on two firmly established pillars.

1. Offspring differ slightly from their parents.

2. organisms must cope with their environment.

You don't have to be a scientist to confirm these observations. Anyone who has raised an animal, either a pet or a farm animal, is aware of them.

Given these observations, a logical conclusion is that those offspring best suited to cope with their environment will out-reprodice those less well suited.

However, he goes on to say, two pillars are enough to support a wall, but not a three-dimensional structure. These pillars are inadequate to support the idea that everything can be explained by random mutation and "survival of the fittest." The Darwinians go beyond the evidence when they try to explain everything on the basis of the two valid observations they start with.