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]

If you cannot prove anyone exists when you see, hear and touch them then what hope a phantom God?

Have you ever seen, heard, or touched Moscow? I suspect you have other evidence which you accept as proof for its existence. I find it interesting you accept eyewitness reports as evidence for Moscow's existence.

[mike182d]

The universe is in flux. I see nothing eternal, nor has anyone.

This is not constant however per astronomical evidence of the Big Band and the point of singularity. It does not exist infinitely, nor does time itself. I would be more than happy to debate this if you wish.

You are being awkward. I see nature and so do you.

We don't see causes, we see effects. Every experience of the external world is a product of interpretation by our sensory nerves of rays and waves of energy, which are effects of a cause. So, you are not seeing "nature," but rather something happening in the universe and defining it as its own cause.

[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.

You're right. And his interpretation is exactly that: interpretation. It is not truth in and of itself nor does it have any affect on the objective evidence. I can close my eyes and say that the sun does not exist all I want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is there.

[GarySpFc]

Anyway that is a poor argument. Can't you do better?

You missed my point. No matter what evidence I present for the existence of God you will reject it.

[tjwmason]

Evolution posits its truth in perceived randomness.
Creationists posits its truth in God.
You cannot believe that God randomnly creates things and that is why the two are inconsistent.

If that is how you are defining creationism and evolution then I am a creationist definitely. However, I think it perfectly possible that God used a series of mutations to move from simple creatures to more complex ones, and finally to the human body (which He infused with a soul).

Allow me to provide an analogy which may prove pertinent. I presume that you believe that every single human being is a creation of God; furthermore I presume that you acknowledge that humans are the natural by-product of the fusion of male and females gametes. God can and does use natural processes in His on-going work of creation. You and I are both examples of that in our immediate existences; it is also perfectly possible that you and I (as part of the human race) are examples of it in his greater creation of humanity.

[WildTurkey]

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.

We don't speak of the "four corners" of the compass. Why do you take the flood literally but not passages that say the earth is fixed in space?

[WildTurkey]

I can present strong evidence for the existence of God

Not really. If there were really evidence for the existence of God, there would not be any bearing of false witness by the Christians on this board.

[GarySpFc]

You have given no evidence my friend. To be honest if you could prove there is a God (he would have to be good though) I would be delighted, fly to America and give you a present and then become a minister of God with the widest smile in "creation".

But alas you cannot.

I have established proof for God is subjective and evidence objective, which you keep overlooking. Why should I present evidence when it is obvious no matter how much I present you will say it is insufficient as proof? That said, the Bible says you already have evidence sufficent for proof, but have rejected it.

[Stone Mountain]

The Bible never changes. Evolution changes constantly. Every time a new piece of evidence comes to light that disproves some long-held tenet, a brand new series of conjectures is whipped up and put into place to make it fit once more.

Well, yes. This is how science works. Scientists propose a theory to explain certain phenonmenon. When more evidence comes to light, the theory changes to fit the new evidence. You seem to be saying that this is a weakness of science, but in fact, it is why the scientific method is accepted by almost everyone. This would seem to be a much better method than forcing facts to conform with a book written long ago by people who didn't have access to the scientific knowledge we have today.

[GarySpFc]

We don't speak of the "four corners" of the compass. Why do you take the flood literally but not passages that say the earth is fixed in space?

Firstly, I should have stated we speak of the "four points of the compass," and you were perfectly aware that is what I meant.

Secondly, the Bible does not speak of the earth being fixed in space. Job’s assertion in 26:7 that the earth hangs on nothing is amazingly accurate and certainly counters the charge that the Bible’s writers held that the earth stood on something else.

As to why I accept one passage as literal and not the other involve rules of exegesis. No matter what I say or present you have already determined to reject in order to maintain your skepticism as I noted earlier.

[GarySpFc]

Not really. If there were really evidence for the existence of God, there would not be any bearing of false witness by the Christians on this board.

Your accusations are noted, but I believe unfounded since I have seen none.

[jwalsh07]

John, the Bible predicted a creation event ages ago. Albert Einstein, as late as 1927, held that the universe was static.

As for seeing God, I'd suggest you simply read the Gospels of the New Testament. Eyewitnesses abound who saw God, they saw him as man, they saw him crucified and speared and they saw him after the resurection.

[jwalsh07]

Nice job on this thread Pete. I wasn't aware you were so fluent in scripture.

[Varda]

" It requires indeed some courage to undertake a labor of such far-reaching extent; this appears, however, to be the only right way by which we can finally reach the solution of a question the importance of which cannot be overestimated in connection with the history of the evolution of organic forms." ( Gregor Mendel )

[orionblamblam]

> When Science comes up with a way to explain something from nothing (the UC) you can say that arguing that is evidence of God is unwarranted.

Irrelevant. What you have done is taken a mystery 9where did the Universe coem from) and tacked on a simplistic answer: a god did it. Not just any god, not some god we don;t know anything about, but one very specific God. Well, to go with the oft-used Creationist analogy of the lone watch found in a desert... ok, you can reliably state that *someone* put it there, but you have *no* data on who that was, why or how they did it. Did the watch fall from an airplane? Did some lost soul, driven mad by the sun, leave it there as an offering to the Sun Gods?

Similarly, assume for the sake of arguement that some intelligent force created the universe. How do you know who or why? You have a religious text that gives *one* hypothesis as to who and why, but it is no more valid logically than any other religious text. And it remains entirely possible that said universe-creater might well be some being wholly beyond your understanding; some cosmic child, making a bauble; some cosmic lunatic, scribblign away in his 11-D notebook; or even a *human*, far in the future, figures out how to make a universe in a jar, and he winds up makign *this* universe.

Do I believe any of these? No. But they are no *less* valid than the "I know exactly which God did it, and here's his manual and secret handshake" approach.