StJacques: "No; what is really interesting is that two Popes, Pius XII and John Paul II, have pointedly stated that ..which makes clear that some of the most religious men of recent times have seen evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution as valid, thus debunking the lame argument that the theory is an "atheistic conspiracy," unless you intend to call these two Popes atheists."
What I find interesting is what I find interesting. You tell me "no", I shouldn't find that interesting, but instead should accept your ideas of what is interesting. Hahaha.
Your response negates nothing I wrote, changes the subject, and is a non sequitur.
StJacques: "I consider myself to be a genuinely religious person and I also see the evidence for the Theory of Evolution as overwhelming."
Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
Are you talking about Darwin's theory:
"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." --- Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838
"There was no place in Darwin's world for divine intervention, nor was mankind placed in a position of superiority vis-a-vis the rest of the animal world. Darwin saw man as part of a continuum with the rest of nature, not separated by divine injunction." ~ Encyclopedia Britannica
The Pope mentioned "several theories", and it doesn't appear as if he was embracing Darwin' theory:
The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution:
"....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... 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 (cf. Gn 1:27-29)......
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind 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. ...." ~ ~
Would the "scientists" quoted below (and the evolutionary theory they embrace) be as highly regarded by the pope as they are among their peers --- maybe even you?:
Stephen Jay Gould: "(Darwins's notebooks) include many statements showing that he espoused but feared to expose something he perceived as far more heretical than evolution itself: philosophical materialism -- the postulate that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products."
Ernst Mayr: "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ "
Richard Lewontin: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
William Provine: "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. .... Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
Come on. Everyone knows that theories evolve with new information. Just like Newton's theory. Not incorrect, just incomplete. Sort of what Behe says about Darwins theory, not incorrect, just incomplete. Now you are on the side of Behe, correct?