Evolution: Catholic High School

[Rogerteder]

I am going to be teaching at a Catholic High(Religion) school this September. I have a degree in Theology and History and have spent 10 years in the public school system teaching history.
This year will be my first at a Catholic school and I am very excited because I am going to be teaching Religion.

Ok here is my question. Do you think this is a good idea? When dealing with creation/evolution I was planning on presenting both sides. I was also planning on explaining what a Catholic may believe about evolution. However, I was also planning on telling the students about evolution’s “weak spots.” I think it is important to talk about the seemingly lack of transitional fossils that should be in existence if evolution is true. Ok what do you say? Is that evolution’s “achilies heal?” Let’s keep it real simple—THANKS!!

 

[CapIV]

The Catholic Church has no qualms with the theory of evolution. This sort of “war” between science and religion is a false dichotomy perpetrated by the media, radical atheists, and evangelicals, beginning sometime in the late 19th century.

OK, just had to get that off my back.

I would just teach evolution, but refrain from the “scientific dogma” that most schools teach. (as I was taught). Teach them that it is perfectly valid to question evolution, and help them in their process in doing so. Yet, it would be a disservice to a young mind to propagate that evolution is a hoax. Evolution in fact reaffirms much of Aquinas’s Natural Law teaching. Try making connections between that.

 

[VociMike]

Interesting question. I think the single most important thing you could teach them is that true science cannot conflict with the true faith. In other words, God as truly revealed in the natural world cannot conflict with God as truly revealed through divine revelation.

Oh, and the other single most important thing is that discovering the “how” of God’s work doesn’t remove God. Finding tools and plans doesn’t eliminate the one who created and used the tools and plans; rather, discovering those tools and plans points to a toolmaker and planner.

Your kids are going to have a (mostly subconscious) sense that the more science explains, the more God is “disproved”. That is what you need to deal with. In the first place, science itself does not make such a claim. Further, it is a nonsensical claim for anybody to make, and one that falls apart under scrutiny.

Convert them from “evolution disproves God” to “true science is one window into the infinite mind of God, the Great Artist and Creator”.

 

[Barel_Roll]

If you’re going to get into theories, you might as well lay them all out on the table BUT give them all equal time. Catholicism and science go together like… peanut butter and marshmallows. Math is God’s language after all…

 

[VociMike]

I would also point out to them that theories of creation that blatantly go against established science tend to push “fence-sitters” away from faith. For example, what is a reasonable person to make of the theory that God placed dinosaur bones in the young earth to somehow test our faith?

 

[Chimpsmack]

I would also point out to them that theories of creation that blatantly go against established science tend to push “fence-sitters” away from faith.

i’d like to point out that this was exactly the position i was in not long ago. as both an atheist-turned-fencesitter and someone who has gained an above average familiarity with the theory of evolution during the course of my education, i can say without doubt that the creation/evolution controversy was the single issue most responsible for keeping me on the fence.

often i would see or hear people arguing from an incorrect premise, or without a full understanding of what the theory of evolution is, or even without knowing the difference between a scientific theory and the word theory in common usage. such instances do the religious a disservice, and very nearly drove me back over the fence. it was very hard to find fellowship with those who deny something i found so evident.

it was with great surprise that i learned that most of those people were not Catholic and that the Catholic Church does not forbid belief in evolution. that discovery was the catalyst that led me to seek knowledge of the Church.

i hope no one gets mad, my intent is not to belittle or ridicule people that dont believe in evolution, just to point out that had the people i consulted insisted i learn or accept creation theory i probably would have gone the rest of my life without seeking God

 

[PhilVaz]

roger << When dealing with creation/evolution I was planning on presenting both sides. >>

Wondering what you mean by that, since some creationists would say the “two sides” are (1) evolution without God, vs. (2) young-earth creationism. I am assuming you mean something more like (2) a theistic evolution position, vs. (2) an “intelligent design” position.

The two sides are not “evolution didn’t happen” vs. “evolution happened” but something more on the lines of how God interacts or uses evolution to create species, right?

roger << I was also planning on explaining what a Catholic may believe about evolution. >>

Textbooks you might assign:

Pope Benedict / Cardinal Ratzinger "In the Beginning…"
or Cardinal Schonborn’s Chance or Purpose

Various paragraphs in the Catechism 159, 283-284 on science/faith, and sections on Adam/Eve and creation (325 ff).

roger << However, I was also planning on telling the students about evolution’s “weak spots.” I think it is important to talk about the seemingly lack of transitional fossils that should be in existence if evolution is true. >>

There aren’t lack of transitional fossils today. Perhaps there were 150 years ago when science first started discovering fossils, and we were new to paleontology, but there are plenty today (fish to tetrapods, reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, whale evolution, human evolution, etc).

bringyou.to/apologetics/ProtheroFossils.jpg

roger << Ok what do you say? Is that evolution’s “achilies heal?” Let’s keep it real simple—THANKS!! >>

There are some tough theological objections (death/original sin/Fall problem, when/where/who is Adam/Eve, the first human soul, chance and randomness, etc) but no good scientific ones (no Achilles’ heel in that sense). Evolution is backed up with a lot of good evidence from various fields, and is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life today, and that should be communicated to the students. A religion class is a good place to discuss the theological objections or biblical problems, how to interpret Genesis, and “intelligent design” ideas, etc.

Phil P

 

[VociMike]

i’d like to point out that this was exactly the position i was in not long ago. as both an atheist-turned-fencesitter and someone who has gained an above average familiarity with the theory of evolution during the course of my education, i can say without doubt that the creation/evolution controversy was the single issue most responsible for keeping me on the fence.

often i would see or hear people arguing from an incorrect premise, or without a full understanding of what the theory of evolution is, or even without knowing the difference between a scientific theory and the word theory in common usage. such instances do the religious a disservice, and very nearly drove me back over the fence. it was very hard to find fellowship with those who deny something i found so evident.

it was with great surprise that i learned that most of those people were not Catholic and that the Catholic Church does not forbid belief in evolution. that discovery was the catalyst that led me to seek knowledge of the Church.

i hope no one gets mad, my intent is not to belittle or ridicule people that dont believe in evolution, just to point out that had the people i consulted insisted i learn or accept creation theory i probably would have gone the rest of my life without seeking God

Thanks for the testimony. Christianity shouldn’t ask seekers to check their brains at the door, and Catholicism doesn’t ask that.

I just read “The Trouble With Physics” by Smolin and he relates an airport meeting with a group of Evangelicals who insisted that dinosaurs still exist in Africa, and the reason nobody sees them is that they live in the deep jungles and hibernate in huge caves which they block up with dirt and rocks. What is a person supposed to do with that kind of thinking?

 

[Rogerteder]

roger << When dealing with creation/evolution I was planning on presenting both sides. >>

Wondering what you mean by that, since some creationists would say the “two sides” are (1) evolution without God, vs. (2) young-earth creationism. I am assuming you mean something more like (2) a theistic evolution position, vs. (2) an “intelligent design” position.

The two sides are not “evolution didn’t happen” vs. “evolution happened” but something more on the lines of how God interacts or uses evolution to create species, right?

roger << I was also planning on explaining what a Catholic may believe about evolution. >>

Textbooks you might assign:

Pope Benedict / Cardinal Ratzinger "In the Beginning…"
or Cardinal Schonborn’s Chance or Purpose

Various paragraphs in the Catechism 159, 283-284 on science/faith, and sections on Adam/Eve and creation (325 ff).

roger << However, I was also planning on telling the students about evolution’s “weak spots.” I think it is important to talk about the seemingly lack of transitional fossils that should be in existence if evolution is true. >>

There aren’t lack of transitional fossils today. Perhaps there were 150 years ago when science first started discovering fossils, and we were new to paleontology, but there are plenty today (fish to tetrapods, reptiles to mammals, dinosaurs to birds, whale evolution, human evolution, etc).

bringyou.to/apologetics/ProtheroFossils.jpg

roger << Ok what do you say? Is that evolution’s “achilies heal?” Let’s keep it real simple—THANKS!! >>

There are some tough theological objections (death/original sin/Fall problem, when/where/who is Adam/Eve, the first human soul, chance and randomness, etc) but no good scientific ones (no Achilles’ heel in that sense). Evolution is backed up with a lot of good evidence from various fields, and is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life today, and that should be communicated to the students. A religion class is a good place to discuss the theological objections or biblical problems, how to interpret Genesis, and “intelligent design” ideas, etc.

Phil P

Thanks Phil I appreciate it. Bob Sungenis says this about transitional fossils.

"Despite their self-assurance, in 1980 they were finally forced to admit that a gargantuan hole existed in the evolutionary model they had been espousing. Gould and Eldredge went on record at a major science convention in Chicago admitting that, after 100 years of painstaking archeological research, they were not able to find any transitional fossils (e.g., fish to amphibian; reptile to bird, etc), and because of this lack of evidence, classical Darwinism had to be abandoned. Newsweek magazine covered the event and reported: “the majority of the 160 of the world’s top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists and developmental biologists supported some form of this new theory of ‘punctuated equilibria.’” Needless to say, Gould and Eldredge shook up the whole auditorium, as well as the entire scientific community. In one of Gould’s more somber moments he admitted that the lack of transitional fossils was “the trade secret of paleontology.” Eldredge had first hand experience of this, since he organized regular expeditions to search for the needed fossils but always came up empty. "

Also Father William Most, if I remember correctly, in his book Catholic Apologetics Today, also makes the claim that top scientists deny the existence of transitional fossils. I know this can get complicated, but when I here both sides it seems pretty convincing on both ends.

 

[edwest2]

Why are you concerned with “that kind of thinking.”? Are you certain that what they think is based on nothing? Have you taken any time to determine where this position comes from?

Instead of trusting someone else for the answer, why not contact one of these schools or groups that teach this? Ask them to give you their information directly. That way, instead of assuming they simply believe it, you may also find out why.

As far as teaching evolution in a Catholic environment, I strongly recommend reading Human Persons Created in the Image of God, especially part 69. The very valid concern of many parents is that their children will be taught in keeping with what the Church teaches, but, in order to do that, you need to get a solid footing. I know people who are Catholic who decided science had all the answers about human origins and human identity (at least enough answers to convince them that a belief in God could be replaced by a belief in evolution that, as far as they were concerned, answered scientific and philosophical/metaphysical questions at the same time).

You also have to be aware of the militant atheist environment your students are growing up in. Where images of prostitutes are easily obtainable and totally dysfunctional describes characters in movies, on TV and on the radio, either in lyrics or through shock jocks.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Camron]

You also have to be aware of the militant atheist environment your students are growing up in. Where images of prostitutes are easily obtainable and totally dysfunctional describes characters in movies, on TV and on the radio, either in lyrics or through shock jocks.

God bless,
Ed

I agree that there is serious reason for grave concern on these matters. But I’m not sure what this has to do with teaching evolution.

Could you elaborate please, perhaps even creating another thread, such as “The Possible Effects of the Theory of Evolution on Society” or something like this?

 

[Chimpsmack]

Gould and Eldredge went on record at a major science convention in Chicago admitting that, after 100 years of painstaking archeological research, they were not able to find any transitional fossils (e.g., fish to amphibian; reptile to bird, etc), and because of this lack of evidence, classical Darwinism had to be abandoned.

this is an example of why discussing this topic can become so frustrating. this claim is simply not true. gould and eldredge have been misrepresented.

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.” - Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, from his book Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, reprinted from Discover Magazine

 

[FindTruth7]

Thanks Phil I appreciate it. Bob Sungenis says this about transitional fossils.

"Despite their self-assurance, in 1980 they were finally forced to admit that a gargantuan hole existed in the evolutionary model they had been espousing. Gould and Eldredge went on record at a major science convention in Chicago admitting that, after 100 years of painstaking archeological research, they were not able to find any transitional fossils (e.g., fish to amphibian; reptile to bird, etc), and because of this lack of evidence, classical Darwinism had to be abandoned. Newsweek magazine covered the event and reported: “the majority of the 160 of the world’s top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists and developmental biologists supported some form of this new theory of ‘punctuated equilibria.’” Needless to say, Gould and Eldredge shook up the whole auditorium, as well as the entire scientific community. In one of Gould’s more somber moments he admitted that the lack of transitional fossils was “the trade secret of paleontology.” Eldredge had first hand experience of this, since he organized regular expeditions to search for the needed fossils but always came up empty. "

Also Father William Most, if I remember correctly, in his book Catholic Apologetics Today, also makes the claim that top scientists deny the existence of transitional fossils. I know this can get complicated, but when I here both sides it seems pretty convincing on both ends.

Top scientists in no way state there is a lack of transitional fossils, it’s vice-versa. That sounds like anti-evolutionists propaganda.

There’s more than meets the eye, and a deeper understanding to what Eldredge and Gould meant. But I’ll let Phil explain, he’s an expert at the evolution/creation debates, as I’ve silently followed

 

[Rogerteder]

this is an example of why discussing this topic can become so frustrating. this claim is simply not true. gould and eldredge have been misrepresented.

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.” - Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, from his book Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, reprinted from Discover Magazine

Sungenis adresses that:

"Feeling the heat from his colleagues, and being incessantly quoted by Protestant creationists who were using his concession to further their cause, in 1983 Gould altered his view, saying:

'Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.(12) ’

What precisely Gould means by “generally lacking” and “larger groups” is anyone’s guess, but the ploy here is to keep the terminology sufficiently ambiguous so no one can pin him down. The phrase “generally lacking” would mean that there were at least some transitional fossils at the species level, but Gould was well aware that no such fossils had been found. It was the very reason he made his earth-shattering admission in Chicago in 1980. As to why “larger groups” show transition whereas species do not, Gould never explained, nor did he offer any specific examples. The fact remains, despite Gould’s claim, without specific transitional forms between species, evolution simply has no scientific evidence for its claims.

Ironically, ever since the discovery of genes and DNA, the main problem for evolutionary theory has been to explain how the upward progression of species, whether it occurs slowly or is punctuated, can create the proper genes for the next species, since it is well known that genes cannot create different genes. Whereas Crick and Watson boasted that their chief goal was to “discredit the existence of God,”(13) what they actually ended up discovering for the rest of the world is that DNA cannot evolve, rather, it is species-specific.

Other scientists in Gould’s ranks are a bit more revealing. Colin Paterson, senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History which houses the largest collection of fossils in the entire world, writing to a reader who wondered why there was no mention of intermediary fossils in his book on evolution, stated:

'I fully agree with your commentary on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil. '"

 

[FindTruth7]

Sungenis adresses that:

"Feeling the heat from his colleagues, and being incessantly quoted by Protestant creationists who were using his concession to further their cause, in 1983 Gould altered his view, saying:

'Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.(12) ’

What precisely Gould means by “generally lacking” and “larger groups” is anyone’s guess, but the ploy here is to keep the terminology sufficiently ambiguous so no one can pin him down. The phrase “generally lacking” would mean that there were at least some transitional fossils at the species level, but Gould was well aware that no such fossils had been found. It was the very reason he made his earth-shattering admission in Chicago in 1980. As to why “larger groups” show transition whereas species do not, Gould never explained, nor did he offer any specific examples. The fact remains, despite Gould’s claim, without specific transitional forms between species, evolution simply has no scientific evidence for its claims.

Ironically, ever since the discovery of genes and DNA, the main problem for evolutionary theory has been to explain how the upward progression of species, whether it occurs slowly or is punctuated, can create the proper genes for the next species, since it is well known that genes cannot create different genes. Whereas Crick and Watson boasted that their chief goal was to “discredit the existence of God,”(13) what they actually ended up discovering for the rest of the world is that DNA cannot evolve, rather, it is species-specific.

Other scientists in Gould’s ranks are a bit more revealing. Colin Paterson, senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History which houses the largest collection of fossils in the entire world, writing to a reader who wondered why there was no mention of intermediary fossils in his book on evolution, stated:

'I fully agree with your commentary on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil. '"

I would suggest reading “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kennith Miller, a scientis AND Christian believer. In it it shows all the numerous transitional fossils we have for many many creatures, and deals greatly with what Gould meant regarding his other “theory.”

Evolution is established fact and I’ve never seen a creationist win a debate.

 

[edwest2]

I do not find Ken Miller very credible. As scientist PZ Myers pointed out, Miller is not an intellectually honest choice as spokesman for the AAAS and NAS. He suggested Richard Dawkins would be better.

Here’s PZ Myers on you tube, just let it run to the 8:48 mark when he mentions Ken Miller. But I suggest listening to the whole thing.

youtube.com/watch?v=EczOQ1mV5aU

God bless,
Ed

 

[Chimpsmack]

Sungenis adresses that:

"Feeling the heat from his colleagues, and being incessantly quoted by Protestant creationists who were using his concession to further their cause, in 1983 Gould altered his view, saying:

'Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.(12) ’

What precisely Gould means by “generally lacking” and “larger groups” is anyone’s guess, but the ploy here is to keep the terminology sufficiently ambiguous so no one can pin him down. The phrase “generally lacking” would mean that there were at least some transitional fossils at the species level, but Gould was well aware that no such fossils had been found. It was the very reason he made his earth-shattering admission in Chicago in 1980. As to why “larger groups” show transition whereas species do not, Gould never explained, nor did he offer any specific examples. The fact remains, despite Gould’s claim, without specific transitional forms between species, evolution simply has no scientific evidence for its claims…

…Other scientists in Gould’s ranks are a bit more revealing. Colin Paterson, senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History which houses the largest collection of fossils in the entire world, writing to a reader who wondered why there was no mention of intermediary fossils in his book on evolution, stated:

'I fully agree with your commentary on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil. '"

Mr. Sungenis says nothing that answers the charge that Gould was misquoted or misrepresented - he simply quotes Gould and accuses him of hiding behind terminology. then he goes on to say *“without specific transitional forms between species, evolution simply has no scientific evidence for its claims” *, without providing proof for this rather remarkable claim.

Mr. Sungenis has also quoted Colin Patterson out of context and in a manner that misrepresents his viewpoints. here is the quote in its entirety:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.” - Colin Patterson

Patterson is not denying the existence of transitional fossils. he is instead refusing to delineate lines of descent among species because there is no way based on the fossil record to test of which among all possible ancestors an organism descended from.

and once again, i dont wish to offend, but having looked up Robert Sungenis’ bio on wikipedia, i see that he holds a PhD in Geocentrism from an unaccredited university. is this really the type of scientist whose opinion you seek?

 

[Rogerteder]

Mr. Sungenis says nothing that answers the charge that Gould was misquoted or misrepresented - he simply quotes Gould and accuses him of hiding behind terminology. then he goes on to say *“without specific transitional forms between species, evolution simply has no scientific evidence for its claims” *, without providing proof for this rather remarkable claim.

Mr. Sungenis has also quoted Colin Patterson out of context and in a manner that misrepresents his viewpoints. here is the quote in its entirety:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.” - Colin Patterson

Patterson is not denying the existence of transitional fossils. he is instead refusing to delineate lines of descent among species because there is no way based on the fossil record to test of which among all possible ancestors an organism descended from.

and once again, i dont wish to offend, but having looked up Robert Sungenis’ bio on wikipedia, i see that he holds a PhD in Geocentrism from an unaccredited university. is this really the type of scientist whose opinion you seek?

No Sungenis says that Gould doesnt explain his statment "that the transitional fossils are present in the larger forms? "
Sungenis was merely asking for an explanation which I think is fair.

Also you say this
"then he goes on to say *“without specific transitional forms between species, evolution simply has no scientific evidence for its claims” *, without providing proof for this rather remarkable claim. "

Isnt that the point? Isnt (perhaps I am wrong) that what evolution is? That species, through millions of years, evolved into higher forms of life? In order for that to be true there must be, in the fossil record, a species(in a transitionary period)“in between” two species? If these fossils dont exist then how can evolution be true?

 

[The_Barbarian]

No Sungenis says that Gould doesnt explain his statment "that the transitional fossils are present in the larger forms? "
Sungenis was merely asking for an explanation which I think is fair.

That’s not what Gould said. He said that often transitions from species to species are lacking, but there is no lack of transitionals between major forms. He also wrote that there are exceptions to this, including horses, forams and ammonites.

It has nothing to do with “larger.” This is the sort of mess one gets in, when one decides to write an article on something one knows little or nothing about.

Gould says there is an abundance of transitional forms, and that for example, Archaeopteryx is a good one.

Let’s do a little test of the theory. You name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I’ll see if I can find a transitional.

 

[Rogerteder]

That’s not what Gould said. He said that often transitions from species to species are lacking, but there is no lack of transitionals between major forms. He also wrote that there are exceptions to this, including horses, forams and ammonites.

It has nothing to do with “larger.” This is the sort of mess one gets in, when one decides to write an article on something one knows little or nothing about.

Gould says there is an abundance of transitional forms, and that for example, Archaeopteryx is a good one.

Let’s do a little test of the theory. You name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I’ll see if I can find a transitional.

Sungenis adresses this, He says :

"Sorry, that won’t pass muster. First of all Archeopteryx was classified as a bird by various paleontologists, so even the evolutionists are divided on it. Second, if transitional fossils existed, there should be tens of thousands of them. There should be just as many transitional fossils as there are non-transitional fossils. In other words, there should be tens of thousands of them. And without them, you have no real scientific evidence for evolution. "

That is a good point it seems. Shouldnt there be just as many transitional (or at least close) fossils as non-transitional ones.