In yesterday's Wall Street Journal there was an article attacking the intelligent design movement (a mild form of creationism). The paper said that the Vatican's astronomer appears to be an evolutionist!

"George Coyne -- astronomer, Jesuit and director of the Vatican Observatory -- goes further. Invoking God to explain what we can't otherwise account for, he says, is "a kind of idolatry," because true faith should come from within and not because we can't fully explain the natural world."

How can anyone believe the Big Lie of evolution?

-- Joe Thornton (MrJoeThornton@excite.com), February 14, 2004

Answers

I believe that the Catholic Church's stand is that you can believe in any method of creation, so long as you acknowledge that it was God who created and caused it to happen that way.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), February 14, 2004.

The Vatican does not "support" evolution any more than it "supports" photosynthesis or continental drift. It simply leaves matters of science to scientists, recognizing that no natural process or phenomenon in God's creation can conflict in any way with His position as Creator, or with His sovereignty over His creaton. There is absolutely nothing in evolutionary biology that conflicts in any way with Christian faith or divine revelation. Of course, if you approach evolution as an atheist, then there is a problem - the same problem that exists if you approach photosynthesis or continental drift as an atheist. The problem in such cases is your rejection of God, not the nature of the scientific subject matter you are studying. Some claim that acceptance of scientific data related to evolutionary change necessarily REQUIRES rejection of God. That is pure nonsense, as demonstrated by the many scientists of all faiths who accept what science reveals, without compromising their faith in God at all.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 14, 2004.

I read a fine book years ago by a great author, John W.N. Sullivan, 1886-1937.

He was a scientist, and the book's title is ''The Limitations of Science''. Even now, almost 70 years later, it's fascinating reading. It is full of examples of scientific thought and experience. But ultimately a book about our own limitations.

I recommend it to you all.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 14, 2004.

Paul M's answer was a great one. It took me a long time to realize that as a Christian it is okay to believe in evolution as God is the Ultimate Creator. Joe, open your heart to a new idea.

-- k brock (brock@ligtel.com), February 19, 2004.

Evolution is on the outs anyway. Many scientists have totally rejected it. So much of the so-called evidence has been proven to be fraudulent over the last several decates, that scientists are loathe to promote it . . . at least honest ones.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 19, 2004.

I'll have to disagree, Gail. I know many scientists, and the very, very few who claim to "totally reject" evolution are invariably those whose fundamentalist churches tell them they must reject it. What IS widely rejected today is "Darwinism", which means Darwin's personal theories regarding just how evolution occurs. Darwin's theories were not "fraudulent", but they were simplistic, and in some cases have turned out to be very inaccurate. Fundamentalists who don't have enough scientific background to recognize the difference are fond of stating that "evolution" is rejected by most scientists today. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. Evolutionary theory remains the unifying thread of all biological science, just as atomic theory is the unifying thread of chemical science. No real scientist can reject a scientific theory unless there exists a viable alternative scientific theory which better explains the observable facts. In this case, no such theory exists. Therefore any real scientist is professionally bound to accept the most reasonable existing theory until another is presented, or to propose an alternative theory for peer consideration. It must be a real conundrum to feel morally bound to reject offhand that which your logic and your professional knowledge indicate you should accept. I can't say personally, since I have never encountered such a situation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 19, 2004.

gail,

I must side with Big Paul on this one... while the number of people CLAIMING to be authoritative sources and yet rejecting the theory of evolution might be on the rise (remember it takes more than reading a few anti-evolution books to be considered an expert), the number of truely educated and qualified authorities now nearly 100% agrees that the evolution of mankind occured in one way or another. there is simply too much evidence that this is the case.

I must dissent, however, when it comes to Big Paul stating that the darwinian ideas like natural selection have been proven wrong. It's not so much that these theories have been proven wrong, but more that these theories have been proven incomplete in describing the entire evolutionary process.

Much like newtons laws in physics, they arent necessarily WRONG, but insufficient in modern physics for describing certain phenomenon. In any case, evolution in college is no longer taught as a theory, it is now taught as a certifiable fact. The same is true for most high schools. In my AP Bio class in high school we learned all about evolution, especially focusing on some of the proofs that darwin used, along with other ideas.

Cre-evolution, or the idea that God created the world through evolution, is on a rapid increase, especially with truly qualified Christian scientists.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 20, 2004.

"It took me a long time to realize that as a Christian it is okay to believe in evolution as God is the Ultimate Creator."

Conversely, then, I suppose it also make sense that if you didn't believe that God was the Ultimate Creator, it would be okay to believe in Creationism.

Fascinating.

Do I have to though?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 20, 2004.

Hi P(p)auls

Science is not my forte' so please excuse my cut n' paste, as I really must rely on the work of another. I think at this point in this thread, it would be wise to define exactly what is meant by "evolution" as opposed to "microevolution" as defined in this article.

In Debate with Evolutionists by Rachel D. Ramer

There is more to discussing evolution than debating the age of the earth or the wing breadth of the archaeopteryx. There is value, for example, in examining how evolutionists make their defense. Looking beyond the argument to the arguer's techniques can expose fallacious reasoning which keep many from considering the God of Creation.

If Christians plan to argue from the Genesis account of creation, they must first support biblical authenticity. Although the Bible can be supported, that may be the long way around. When Scripture is introduced, evolutionists launch into one of their "best" fallacies: false distinction -- the banning of "religion" from scientific debate.

A shortcut is to point out how evolutionists engage in logical fallacies such as the "straw man," "bias ad hominem," "false distinction," and "non sequitur" fallacies. The first three are used in attempts to invalidate the creationists' stance; the fourth endeavors to validate macroevolution (the change from one species into another) as legitimate science.

The Argument You So Eloquently Refuted Was Not Mine! A strawman fallacy involves the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument to refute him or her easily. Stephen Jay Gould, in his article, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in the May 1981 issue of Discover Magazine, attempted to refute creationism by saying, "We have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and the laboratory." His point: evolution is an irrefutable fact, and creationists ignore this certainty.

Yet, the evidence he cited supported microevolution, involving changes that take place within separate species. Creationists have no contention with the concept of microevolution.

In fact, A. E. Wilder-Smith, in his book The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (T.W.F.T. Publishers), makes a case for both negative and positive mutations (microevolution) working against macroevolution. Negative mutations weaken the creature, a tendency that does not support survival of the fittest; positive mutations make it a stronger creature, helping to preserve its own class. In the latter case, the variations are the means that allow the species to survive distinct from other species.

The fact that many evolutionists use microevolution to refute creationism shows the seriousness of this fallacy. Pointing this out can dispel the misconception that Christians do not accept scientific fact.

Religious Bias Disqualifies. A bias ad hominem fallacy has to do with disqualifying someone's argument simply because the arguer has a special bias in the issue. For example, someone with a religious experience or belief is disqualified from having a valid opinion about his or her own religion. It is fitting to check the soundness of a biased person's argument, but it is wrong to reject the argument solely because of the arguer's bias.

In the 1982 trial of McLean vs. Arkansas, which centered around teaching both theories of origins in public schools, questions were raised concerning the religious beliefs of the creation experts. Objections by the defense (creationists) were consistently overruled. Yet, what the proponents believe is beside the point.

Of course, there are those who combat evolution who are not religious, but even that is beside the point. Religious belief is not necessarily based on fact, but neither is it necessarily founded in falsehood. A "religious" view might actually be true. If we don't allow it to be heard, how can we claim to uphold free inquiry?

...Because Creationism Is Religion. The "false distinction" fallacy relegates creationism to a different category, thereby falsely nullifying it. To evolutionists, religion often disregards science (illustrated in the church-motivated condemnation of Galileo). Science is described as what is observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. With that definition, creationism is not science. Yet, neither is macroevolution.

The false distinction is between evolution and creationism as "science versus religion" instead of evidence for evolution versus evidence for creationism. If the argument never gets to that level, again free inquiry is stifled.

To Believe in the Miracle of Evolution. Suppose evolutionists abandoned the above three problem areas and debated creationists on equal terms. Would their position then prove reliable? Not really, because the fallacy known as non sequitur -- Latin for "it does not follow" -- becomes an immediate issue. Microevolution leading to macroevolution, discussed earlier, is one example.

The celebrated "missing links" as concrete evidence is another. The role of fossils as transitional forms is speculative at best in comparison with documented, trackable microevolution. Yet, evolutionists often use these "proofs" interchangeably as though the reliability of the one naturally follows the credibility of the other.

Also problematic is concluding from molecular biology that there is a common ancestry for all organisms. It does not follow that because all life shares a common biochemical basis, that relationship was brought about through evolution. In engineering this type of creative diversity from the same basic building blocks is good design, the result of a designer.

Finally, it does not follow that because religion was wrong about Galileo, it is in error about creationism. The same evolutionists who insist that their own past mistakes should not be held against their position (e.g., promoting false "missing links" such as the Piltdown man) are often unwilling to allow their intellectual opponents to have human failings as well.

Because the above fallacies are common, many people cannot "hear" the scientific evidence for creation, they cannot accept the Genesis account, they cannot listen unbiased to what they consider a biased view. If we can expose these flaws, we may earn the privilege of leading them beyond God as Creator to God as Savior.

About the Author

Rachel D. Ramer is a freelance writer who lives in Olathe, Kansas.

End of document, CRJ0165A.TXT (original CRI file name), "In Debate with Evolutionists" release A, August 31, 1994 R. Poll, CRI

*******

I don't know why I chimed in on this thread since this subject bores me and I am no expert at all, AT ALL, but I have read some good books on the subject and attended an interesting seminar on the subject. Evolution is a "theory" not fact and yet it is being taught in schools, even Catholic, as fact. And yes, there are some very interesting, downright dirty disceptions being taught within this hypothetical system of belief.

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 20, 2004.