Replies

"..explain to me how you see God and evolution fitting together." ~ xzins

Here's how one (non-RCC) Christian scientist sees it fitting together:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-93Fisher.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF3-94Fisher.html

~ Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org

As the previous pope pointed out, there are several theories of evolution. When OP speaks about evolutionISM, he is referencing the specific theory of evolution embraced by atheists like Dawkins.

The terms "evolution" and "creationISM" must be specifically defined before one goes on to use them in arguments. It's a matter of semantics - the words mean different things to different people. I see people wasting time arguing apples and oranges here all the time.

For example, I think the previous pope nailed down the bottom line pretty well when he said:

"..What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.

A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God willed for itself."

In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity, and self- giving with his peers.

St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created. But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity.

All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html

The case that allegedly says "atheism is a religion" was brought by a prison inmate who wanted to have a separate study group set up for him and his friends who were atheists, and when the prison officials turned him down he sued claiming he was being discriminated against. The appellate court said:

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
[snip]
In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.
[snip]
Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.

Source: here.

This is no big deal. Protecting the alleged sensitivity of a prisoner.