Church needs better evolution education, says bishops' official

Catholic News Service ^ | 2-1-2005

[mike182d]

NEW YORK (CNS) -- Catholic educators need better teaching programs about evolution "to correct the anti-evolution biases that Catholics pick up" from the general society, according to a U.S. bishops' official involved in dialogue with scientists for 20 years.

Without a church view of human creation that is consistent with currently accepted scientific knowledge, "Catholicism may begin to seem less and less 'realistic' to more and more thoughtful people," said David Byers, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Science and Human Values from 1984 to 2003.

"That dynamic is a far greater obstacle to religious assent than evolution," he said in a bylined article in the Feb. 7 issue of America, a weekly magazine published in New York by the Jesuits. The article discussed the value of the dialogues with scientists organized by the bishops' committee.

"Denying that humans evolved seems by this point a waste of time," he said without mentioning specific controversies in the United States.

[GarySpFc]

Tell me please, why you believe that the "flood" covered the earth when you do NOT believe the Bible when it makes reference to it's "flat earth" parameters.

I don't know why I should answer you when time after time you have displayed an amazing ignorance of the various literary devices in the Bible. "Some" translations of the Bible reference the four corners of the earth in the same way you would speak of the four corners of the compass.
Finally, I do believe a literal flood covered the earth. Now, I am not going to answer any more mocking from the peanut gallery.

[mike182d]

Where did God come from or are you going to disprove the above statement?

The statement "something cannot come from nothing" applies only to things that are created, in that they actually come from something. If a being exists necessarily, it does not come from anything but rather it is that something that everything else comes from, as opposed to nothing.

[mike182d]

If man did not exist, would God exist?

If you did not exist, would I?

[mike182d]

I have never seen, heard, felt or known anyone who has met God, nor is there anything to prove he exists. As there is no proof of something, I therefore don't think he exists.

The mere fact that the universe, finite in nature, exists at all doesn't raise any questions in your mind?

[mike182d]

As I say above you cannot PROVE anything is necessary, it merely IS what it IS.

Which premise of the argument given is untrue? If it is valid and sound, it would appear that there is indeed proof.

[mike182d]

This is an argument with a built in premise and foregone conclusion. A premise is a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn.

So, you're denying that the universe is contingent in nature?

[mike182d]

Of-course the universe raises many questions, but I don't see a God at work.

Really? But mother-Nature is hard at work, eh?

[GarySpFc]

Prove to me that god exists?

Can you cannot even prove that anyone exists. I can present strong evidence for the existence of God, but each individual has to decide if they will accept of reject that evidence as proof. Proof is subjective, whereas evidence objective.

[mikeus_maximus]

A little more on sola scriptura and Akins' well-known arguments against it. I haven't read Salmon's book yet, but I think I will.

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/september2002.htm

[mike182d]

Proof is subjective, whereas evidence objective.

Good point.

[mike182d]

Explain what you mean by contingent and necessary and I will tell you.

Its either always existed or was created. Well I can see that can't I?

You can see Mother Nature? What does she look like?

[mike182d]

But the subject is the interpreter of the objective evidence. A normal sighted person sees things different from someone who is color blind. Although the objective evidence is the exact same for both.

But lack of proof of the color red to a blind person is not a case against its existence.

[mikeus_maximus]

Gave this to Acquinas fan:

"A little more on sola scriptura and Akins' well-known arguments against it. I haven't read Salmon's book yet, but I think I will.

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/september2002.htm "

But Protestants aren’t guiltless in this attitude either. Catholics rightly criticize them for being so fractured and inconsistent in their approach to God’s word:

http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/understandAlike.htm

Trying to get people to change their preconceived notions, family traditions and comfort zone with respect to religion, is a difficult thing. Nothing can accomplish it but a sincere desire to put God first in our hearts. And that’s one way He separates those who are His children, and those who aren't.

May God bless your inquiry.

[stormer]

"While his heretical beliefs of astronomical theories were not the only crimes for which he was burned at the stake, they most certainly fueled the fire from which Galileo no doubt smelled the smoke."


From Bad Astronomy by Linda Zimmerman