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.

[MineralMan]

"Let us suppose that a future generation millions of years from now digs up a 1965 Mustang and then a 2005 Mustang. They then go on to deduce, given their limited knowledge of the past, that since the two cars are nearly identical in structure and chemical make-up that one must have come from the other "naturally" by means of "evolution." "

When automobiles begin to reproduce, then we can discuss your comparison.

[WildTurkey]

I don't trust much that comes from today's Jesuits. They are simply not the same kind of men that I knew during my years of Jesuit education.

There are no female Jesuits?

[tjwmason]

Not all creationists are "young-earth" creationists.

I know that full-well, which I why I added the qualifer. I have plenty of respect for creationists (especially I.D. theorists), but those who insist on a young-earth are barking mad.

[LPM1888]

Darwinian macro-evolution is filled with so many holes I'm amazed that it even made it this far as a legitimate scientific theory.

Only in your imagination.

[MineralMan]

Officially, there are no Jesuit nuns.

[DannyTN]

Betrayal

I'm with Mike. If this kind of thinking had prevailed in the garden, the Catholic church would be in there encouraging Eve, "It's ok, you won't die, you'll know good from evil and you'll be more like God. Everyone's doing it. Everyone believes it. Look at the serpent's qualifications. Who are we to question the serpent?"

[tjwmason]

There are no female Jesuits?

The Society of Jesus is a sacerdotal order, and as women cannot become Priests, they cannot become Jesuits.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms

Table 1: Summary of the results of analyses of characteristics of fossil Homo species [After Table 7 in Wood and Collard, Ref. 3]. 1) body size, 2) body shape, 3) locomotion, 4) jaws and teeth, 5) development and 6) brain size. H = like modern humans, A = australopith-like, I = intermediate ? = data unavailable.

Species name	1	2	3	4	5	6
H. rudolfensis	?	?	?	A	A	A
H. habilis	A	A	A	A	A	A
H. ergaster	H	H	H	H	H	A
H. erectus	H	?	H	H	?	I
H. heidelbergensis	H	?	H	H	?	A
H neanderthalensis	H	H	H	H	H	H

In order to fend off the usual bogus anti-creationist accusations of quoting out of context, Table 1 (above) has been reproduced from Table 7 in Wood and Collard exactly as it appears in their work. As can be seen, only one major constellation of traits in the specimens in question is in fact characterized as I (intermediate) between australopiths and Homo sapiens. All of the others are either unknown, clear-cut australopith in morphology, or clear-cut Homo sapiens in morphology. Now, had the hominins actually been a series of transitional forms gradually progressing from australopith to modern Homo sapiens (as commonly portrayed in textbooks), many if not most of the entries in Table 1 would instead be I (intermediate).

****(3)Wood and Collard, The human genus, Science 284, Ref. 1, p. 66

Also see The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470.

Note: I do NOT work for AIG. I am simply pointing out an article that disagrees with supposed 'human evolution.'

Also note that anthropology has been plagued by fraud many times in the past. Most recently by a flamboyant Professor from Germany... Fraud

[mikeus_maximus]

Absolutely. Just like there are very different catholic sects, the orthodox church, etc.

That what happens when men abandon the authority of God's word, and come up with their own creeds to advance their own desires and agendas. Some blame it on "contiunuing revelation," some blame it on "differing interpretation."

The root attitude and irreverance are the same.

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

[gobucks]

"The CC has a long and notorious history of political expediency and doctrinal compromise. It's what comes from adopting a belief that their clergy continue to get "revelations" about the suppossed "incomplete" scriptures. Non sola scriptura reaps what it sows.

It's a first cousin to the "living Constitution" mindset: "Go with the times.""

I agree. I would also state that is quite difficult to undertand the big picture, if big holes are within it. One should understand, for example, that Darwin's grandfather wrote a poem.

(see: Erasmus Darwin (The real source of 'Frankenstein' as well as Evolution).

From that poem, the godless book, Frankenstein was written. From the grandfather's original experiments, Evolution was 'naturally' born by the grandson.

Talk about multi-generaltional curse; talk about 'by their fruits'!

[orionblamblam]

> Let us suppose that a future generation millions of years from now digs up a 1965 Mustang and then a 2005 Mustang.

Are you still totting out that old nonsense?

Fine. Point to the mechanism whereby a 1965 Mustang can reproduce itself. Until you do that, your analogy is an intentional falsehood meant to deceive.

[HamiltonJay]

What betrayal? You haven't been paying attention to the church if you think they have ever been against evolution. The catholic church has NEVER declared evolution in conflict with the faith.. in fact they have released edicts saying the exact opposite.

Evolution does not now, nor never has negated God. In fact evolution in all things is visible evidence of God's existence. Go read some St. Thomas Aquinas.

The church definately needs to get better at articulating its stands and getting the word out. I'd suggest every Catholic here watch "A life worth living" on EWTN at 9pm on Fridays... you will get more truth and logic and articulate message about the faith than probably anywhere else from the church in the last 40 years.

Originally broadcast on NETWORK TELEVISION believe it or not, for about 8 years, and a top show during that time, often beating out the other networks. You will find yourself enlightened and reaffirmed of things you already know to be true, but the church's message on them does not get out much in this secular society these days.

[mike182d]

You are ignorant to the fact that science calls many things a theory when indeed it is accepted fact.

You are ignorant to the fact that in order for a scientific theory to be of value that it must yield reliable predictions or it is useless. For instance, the Theory of Relativity is such a good theory because not only does it explain past events, but it also can predict future occurances with astounding predictability. The same cannot be said of the Theory of Evolution.

For example: 1. What is the preceived rate of evolution? 2. What can we expect evolution to yield in the next 100, 1000, or even 10000 years? 3. What factors are most influential to the process of evolution.

Fact of the matter is that the Theory of Evolution, as an explanation for speciation, is the equivelant of saying "it just happens."

[mike182d]

When automobiles begin to reproduce, then we can discuss your comparison.

When we have evidence of species naturally giving birth to a species other than its own, I will acknolwedge your rebutal.

[Emmett McCarthy]

No, but I think there are enough queer ones to make up the difference.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Since when is theory accepted fact?

As any good scientist will tell you, many "theories" are accepted as scientific fact. Very few theories become scientific "law."

Evolution and natural selection is an undeniable fact. Isn't God's creation a wonderful mystery? =)

[mike182d]

Ah. I apologize for the misinterpretation :-)

[dmz]

I don't know whether this is too fine a distinction for the average secularist to understand or perhaps they purposely overlook it in order to keep a foolish argument going.
________

Yea, we average secularists are way too dumb to understand those fine distinctions you are making.

Hey!!!, the rest of you secular evolutionists. Did you know that there was a difference between micro and macro evolution?

Hey, Emmett, thanks for clearing that up for us.