Evolution is not scientific, its a religion.

[cassini]

As a result of reading and contributing to the many threads on evolution I decided to open up a separate one on the subject of evolution is not scientific but religious.

Here is the situation. Evolutionists, be they Atheists, Agnostics, Modernists, Buddhists or whatever on this thread, never cease to indoctrinate all that:

EVOLUTION = SCIENCE

Creation, on the other hand, is recognised correctly to be a religious concept because it involves non-reproducible, preternatural events in the past that has the Bible as its authority. Thus:

CREATION = RELIGION

Therefore, the issue as the courts view it, amounts to the following:

SCIENCE v RELIGION

The upcoming ‘conference in the Vatican’, I hope, will separate evolution from religion and identify it for what it really is - a religious concept, just like creation.

EVOLUTION = RELIGION

The reason for this correction should be based on the criterion that evolution is and always has been scientifically impossible. Once this is demonstrated it puts evolution into the same category as a flat earth, spontaneous generation, perpetual motion machines and the Piltdown Man - historically interesting, but scientifically obsolute ideas. Any further claim for consideration that evolution makes will have to be as a religion, and not science. In the courts the true status of the debate will be :

RELIGIOUS CREATION vs. RELIGIOUS EVOLUTION

We all know the debate is about ORIGINS - what actually happened in the past What happened in the past is not accessible to the scientific method of observation and test. It is evolution’s claim to be continuing in the present that brings it into the scientific arena and subject it to scientific test and falsification.

Pinning down evolution - and evolutionists, be they Atheists, Agnostics, Catholics, Buddhists or whatever - gets more difficult and complicated as they compile their claims. Biologists say evolution is the change that living things have undergone. But there are two kinds of change, LIMITED change and LIMITLESS change. Creationists accept limited change within kinds, evolution claims LIMITLESS change (from molecule to man). This ties evolution to ENDLESS change that will go on forever. Evolution is not limited to the past but continues in the present and continues into the future.

Evolutionary change however is SLOW, God how slow if evolutionists will pardon the pun. So slow it is virtually impossible to see. That suits evolutionists fine fine. It also claims it is NATURAL, that is, according to regular, ordinary, everyday laws. Evolution, as molecule to man demonstrates, goes UPHILL in terms of energy, structure and intelligence, from simple to complex, from random to orgasnised, from particles to people.

Evolution is PURPOSELESS, a random, blind process, without any particular objective or goal in mind. Never mind THEISTIC-EVOLUTIONISTS who mix preternaturalism and science to achieve their religious evolutionism called MODERNISM. Evolution is a COMPLETE system that applies to everything, not just biological evolution.

So, EVOLUTION is a continuous theory for the real world. It is happening NOW. This MATTER to MAN ‘science’ is supposed to be evident in science NOW, yes?

OK. Is inorganic matter to organic matter demonstrable in science today? NO.
Science knows what ingredients are necessary for life. Now what do you think would happen if modern SCIENCE were to put these ingregients into a container and leave them in it for a year, a hundred years, a thousand years, a million years? Yes you are correct. SCIENCE would find the materials would act according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that is, DECAY. But let SCIENCE give this mixture a better chance to become a living cell by putting it in a mixer. Now turn it for a day, a year, a billion years. Will life emerge? Modern SCIENCE would laugh at the idea.

Now according to evolution, which claims to be SCIENCE, it DID go from molecule to man. This is not SCIENCE, but a FAITH in an UNSCIENTIFIC happening. Oh yeh, I know, they claim they can find one little exception to this** LAW**. But SCIENCE shows EVERYTHING else is determined by the Second Law. In other words, for evolution to happen, everything would have to be in the OPPOSITE direction to what is demonstrable by SCIENCE today, not one or two exceptions whatever they are.

As a matter of fact, for evolution to be true it would have to be a** PERPETUAL-MOTION MACHINE**. But SCIENCE does not accept PERPETUAL-MOTION MACHINES.

So evolution cannot say it is SCIENTIFIC BASED more ‘I wish’ based. Modern SCIENCE cannot accommodate it NOW so it is a BELIEF SYSTEM and belief systems are RELIGIOUS.

So, get out of tthe SCIENCE classes and into the RELIGIOUS clases you HYPOCRITICAL EVOLUTIONISTS.

RELIGIOUS CREATION vs. RELIGIOUS EVOLUTION

 

[garysibio]

The study of our origin is not scientific no matter which theory you hold to. Origins is a matter of history. Even if you could prove that evolution was possible, you cannot scientifically prove that it did occur. History requires evidence of a different kind, an eyewitness. There was only one eyewitness to creation and that is God. He has already told us how the universe came into being in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. For some reason there are quite a few Catholics on this forum who just cannot take God at His word on this issue. They feel they have to dance around it because their high school biology teacher told them that evolution was a fact. They never see that the theory and it supposed evidence are loaded with problems.

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

The Pope actually endorses evolution as the best explanation of observable reality and clearly says that it is not in contrast with any religious doctrine.

evolution is scientifically impossible.

Any actual references here as to what makes it impossible?

Evolution is a FACT. The fact that it happens is indisputable. Species change over time. The THEORY of evolution deals explains the mechanism for that change and it is backed by mountains of evidence, it is testable, repeatable, has produced predictions about species that will be found (the Darwin moth) and is observable through scientific means

Evolution makes no comment on religious claims, it only seeks to explain the variety of life.

the debate is about ORIGINS What happened in the past is not accessible to the scientific method of observation and test.

Of course it is subject to observation. You can’t actually be saying that if we weren’t there to see it first hand then we can’t observe it. IF that were true, then you would have no reason to believe your bible was true as you weren’t there to see it being written. There are other ways to observe things than with your eyes.

there are two kinds of change, LIMITED change and LIMITLESS change. Creationists accept limited change within kinds, evolution claims LIMITLESS change (from molecule to man). This ties evolution to ENDLESS change that will go on forever. Evolution is not limited to the past but continues in the present and continues into the future.

Evolution does not make any comment on life coming from unlife, or molecules to man. It explains the diversity of life, not the origins of life. So your commentary on origins is invalid as it does not pertain to evolution. That is abiogenisis.

Evolutionary change however is SLOW, God how slow if evolutionists will pardon the pun. So slow it is virtually impossible to see. It also claims it is NATURAL, that is, according to regular, ordinary, everyday laws. Evolution, as molecule to man demonstrates, goes UPHILL in terms of energy, structure and intelligence, from simple to complex, from random to orgasnised, from particles to people.

Molecule to man? False statement;read above.

It is not necessarily simple to complex, as long as the change makes the organism better suited to its environment.

Evolution is PURPOSELESS, a random, blind process, without any particular objective or goal in mind. Never mind THEISTIC-EVOLUTIONISTS who mix preternaturalism and science to achieve their religious evolutionism called MODERNISM. Evolution is a COMPLETE system that applies to everything, not just biological evolution.

Evolution isn’t purposeless, it’s just not a ladder. The purpose of evolution is to make the organism more suited to survival in its environment. How is evolution NOT biological? How would it apply to anything that is not biological? No one is claiming this. This is called a straw man argument.

OK. Is inorganic matter to organic matter demonstrable in science today? NO.

Evolution does not involve inorganic to organic. That is abiogenesis.
Second you are wrong. Amino acids HAVE been made from inorganic materials and we have been able to do so since 1953.
I will say again, though, that it has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, only the diversity of life.

SCIENCE would find the materials would act according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that is, DECAY. But let SCIENCE give this mixture a better chance to become a living cell by putting it in a mixer. Now turn it for a day, a year, a billion years. Will life emerge? Modern SCIENCE would laugh at the idea.

Under the right conditions modern science HAS done this. So clearly you are making things up when you say that modern science would laugh. Read above.

Now according to evolution, which claims to be SCIENCE, it DID go from molecule to man. This is not SCIENCE, but a FAITH in an UNSCIENTIFIC happening. Oh yeh, I know, they claim they can find one little exception to this** LAW**. But SCIENCE shows EVERYTHING else is determined by the Second Law. In other words, for evolution to happen, everything would have to be in the OPPOSITE direction to what is demonstrable by SCIENCE today, not one or two exceptions whatever they are.

No! Evolution does not talk about the origins of life, only the diversity of life.
The second law of thermodynamics refers to closed chemical reactions. Evolution is not a chemical reaction nor is it a closed system. So the second law of thermodynamics does not apply (another example of your lack of understanding of science) so no one claims this is an exception.

As a matter of fact, for evolution to be true it would have to be a** PERPETUAL-MOTION MACHINE**. But SCIENCE does not accept PERPETUAL-MOTION MACHINES.

This portion makes no sense. Evolution is not a machine, it is not a body that acts under force, nor is it a thing in motion.

So evolution cannot say it is SCIENTIFIC BASED more ‘I wish’ based. Modern SCIENCE cannot accommodate it NOW so it is a BELIEF SYSTEM and belief systems are RELIGIOUS.

Your post exhibits a critical failing to understand the science in evolution, or even what evolution is. You mix abiogenesis and evolution, chemical reactions with evolution, and mechanical motion with evolution. I can understand that it’s counter intuitive to accept evolution, but once you start to learn about it, you begin to see how it is the only explanation for the fact that species have changed over time. People who have no understanding of science should refrain from arguing the syllabus in science classrooms.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Peace

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

The study of our origin is not scientific no matter which theory you hold to. Origins is a matter of history. Even if you could prove that evolution was possible, you cannot scientifically prove that it did occur. History requires evidence of a different kind, an eyewitness. There was only one eyewitness to creation and that is God. He has already told us how the universe came into being in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. For some reason there are quite a few Catholics on this forum who just cannot take God at His word on this issue. They feel they have to dance around it because their high school biology teacher told them that evolution was a fact. They never see that the theory and it supposed evidence are loaded with problems.

Of course it is scientific to study our origins. There are ways to observe things without having to witness them personally.

On a separate note altogether, if you are looking for eyewitnesses, good luck with your claim that jesus was real. There are no eye witness accounts of him existing, and that IS the perview of history. There are no eyewitnesses to the bible being written either, so you have to dismiss that too by your arguments.
Clearly there are other standards of evidence that we can look to.
The scientific methods of looking into the past include many different things, all equally valid and none of them based on belief.

Take for example the viewing of star systems from hundreds of millions of light years away. They are observing physical laws from millions of years ago, and celestial events from long ago. This gives evidence and insight to study about the origins or the universe and to the laws present at that time which help us judge what did and didn’t happen.
There are many ways to “see” things without being there.

How about electricity? No one has ever seen an electron, but yet much of science is based on the fact that they exist. The same is true of black holes.

Peace

 

[BrooklynBoy200]

Of course it is scientific to study our origins. There are ways to observe things without having to witness them personally.

On a separate note altogether, if you are looking for eyewitnesses, good luck with your claim that jesus was real. There are no eye witness accounts of him existing, and that IS the perview of history. There are no eyewitnesses to the bible being written either, so you have to dismiss that too by your arguments.
Clearly there are other standards of evidence that we can look to.
The scientific methods of looking into the past include many different things, all equally valid and none of them based on belief.

Take for example the viewing of star systems from hundreds of millions of light years away. They are observing physical laws from millions of years ago, and celestial events from long ago. This gives evidence and insight to study about the origins or the universe and to the laws present at that time which help us judge what did and didn’t happen.
There are many ways to “see” things without being there.

How about electricity? No one has ever seen an electron, but yet much of science is based on the fact that they exist. The same is true of black holes.

Peace

…i think the Bible would count as an eyewitness account of Jesus’ existence. 4 eyewitness accounts

 

[Ghoti]

…i think the Bible would count as an eyewitness account of Jesus’ existence. 4 eyewitness accounts

I don’t think Luke ever claimed to be an eyewitness account.

 

[EphelDuath]

I don’t believe God would be cruel enough to try and trick us by leaving so much scientific evidence for something that is inherently sinful to believe.

Which is why it’s great that biological macroevolution does not contradict Christianity whatsoever, and the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution. Can we put this matter to rest?

 

[BrooklynBoy200]

I don’t think Luke ever claimed to be an eyewitness account.

Ok maybe not. Just throwing that out there.

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

…i think the Bible would count as an eyewitness account of Jesus’ existence. 4 eyewitness accounts

There is not a single eyewitness account in the bible that is verifiable outside biblical sources. You can’t use the bible to prove the bible.

Peace

 

[garysibio]

Of course it is scientific to study our origins. There are ways to observe things without having to witness them personally.

On a separate note altogether, if you are looking for eyewitnesses, good luck with your claim that jesus was real. There are no eye witness accounts of him existing, and that IS the perview of history. There are no eyewitnesses to the bible being written either, so you have to dismiss that too by your arguments.
Clearly there are other standards of evidence that we can look to.
The scientific methods of looking into the past include many different things, all equally valid and none of them based on belief.

Take for example the viewing of star systems from hundreds of millions of light years away. They are observing physical laws from millions of years ago, and celestial events from long ago. This gives evidence and insight to study about the origins or the universe and to the laws present at that time which help us judge what did and didn’t happen.
There are many ways to “see” things without being there.

How about electricity? No one has ever seen an electron, but yet much of science is based on the fact that they exist. The same is true of black holes.

Peace

I didn’t say they couldn’t be studied using science; I said the method of our origins could not be proved through science. In other words, just because you can prove something could have happened, you cannot prove it did happen. Do you understand the difference?

Of course there are eyewitness accounts of Jesus. They are called the gospels. Of course you don’t want to acknowledge their historicity because, if they are true, you look pretty silly. Jesus is also mentioned in other works of the time including Josephus and Suetonius.

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

I don’t believe God would be cruel enough to try and trick us by leaving so much scientific evidence for something that is inherently sinful to believe.

Which is why it’s great that biological macroevolution does not contradict Christianity whatsoever, and the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution. Can we put this matter to rest?

You could not be more right. The pope himself allows that evolution does not contradict any religious teachings. So why fight solid science?

Well said.
Peace

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

@CASSINI
Um, no. Religious belief is about faith in god or some other supernatural phenomena [such as reincarnation] that is held even if there are reasons or evidence that points to the contrary. Science is about observing nature, and then proposing testable hypotheses as to how and why a phenomena behaves or works. Testing must involve a null hypothesis [to prevent confirmation bias] and at least one “alternate hypothesis” [what the scientist thinks may be happening]. Contrary data would lead to the acceptance of the null hypothesis-[the notion is untrue]. If there is no nullifying data, and ample data to support the hypothesis, then it is promoted to theory. Theories are never proven in an absolutist sense, but a scientific theory like evolution is abundantly and robustly supported by the evidence. There were older theories about evolution [such as Lamarck’s] which have been nulled because of poor fit with the data. Evolution as a fact is accepted by all reasonable standards. You might want to brush up on the differences between fact, theory, hypothesis and law, and while you are about it, look up the different meanings of the word belief, and the implications of what faith is.

Not indoctrination, maybe education. You seem to be unaware of the difference.

Wibble. Origins of life and the universe can be argued from a creationist standpoint, or a scientific one. You seem to be confusing or conflating the idea of creation with the fact [or otherwise] of creation’s cause. creation might have a natural cause, or god might have used nature to create life via evolution.

Again, a vast and misleading renationalisation. Dr. Kenneth B. Miller is both devout Catholic and a scientist who not only accepts evolution, but defends it against creationists. Another epic failure of you in both reason and evidence.

Oh another epic failure to understand. What your really saying is that you don’t like what science has discovered, so you are denying it and characterizing it as a religion. Are you going to deny gravity as well because it pulls you down? One’s likes or dislikes has nothing to do with the validity [or not] of the science.

Unadulterated ********. You personal failure to understand the science does not make the science invalid. Your personal incredulity does not give you the right to assert what is right and wrong about science. Present some evidence, rather than making bald statements without evidential support. And learn how to spell, or at least use the spell-checker, do you mean absolute or obsolete : “obsolute”. If you want to be an effective advocate and communicator of your views, then learn how to express yourself properly.

Yet more ignorance about the scientific method. Scientists have not observed quantum particles either, and yet here you sit, at your computer, showing contempt for the science that inferred QM, and from that, built the transistor. [And hence the computer]. Epic fail.

Are you inferring that evolution has direction and purpose here? “And from molecules to man” is limitless?

You have no idea about what evolution is. Go read a real textbook on the matter. You level of ignorance is quite embarrassing.

More tripe. Mutations are almost random, but not quite. Natural Selection which acts on mutations, is not random. It is about fitness.

Don’t conflate biological evolution with chemical evolution. Different subjects.

Oh good “straw man” argument.

More ********, not only do you misrepresent the science of evolutionary theory, but you show your ignorance of physics as well. ? Go and read the second law of thermodynamics CAREFULLY. Earth is not a total system, as it get energy from the sun. Thus local increases in order are allowed. Have you ever read any real science, or just what drivel you troll from nonsense creationists sites like answers in genesis?

See previous on 2nd Law

You are the one doing the wishing here. You wish evolution was not true. You don’t understand it, and you don’t like it. Fallacy of reasoning

I am sure any scientist, if invited, would like to discuss evolution with anyone, at any venue. Are you interested in discussion, or do you just want to troll and trade insults. Overall, your comments are immature, unreasonable and bigotted to a remarkable degree. Is this your idea of Christian charity and love?

EDITED OUT QUOTES OUT AS IT EXCEEDS WORD LENGTH.

 

[EphelDuath]

There is not a single eyewitness account in the bible that is verifiable outside biblical sources. You can’t use the bible to prove the bible.

The parts of the Jewish Talmud composed in the 1st century never refers to Jesus as a trickster or fraud, but a sorcerer. Something to think about.

Also, see: the Moabite Stone, the Balaam inscription, and the Taylor prism.

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

I didn’t say they couldn’t be studied using science; I said the method of our origins could not be proved through science. In other words, just because you can prove something could have happened, you cannot prove it did happen. Do you understand the difference?

Of course there are eyewitness accounts of Jesus. They are called the gospels. Of course you don’t want to acknowledge their historicity because, if they are true, you look pretty silly. Jesus is also mentioned in other works of the time including Josephus and Suetonius.

First they CAN be used to prove things about our past in the universe (including presumably our origins), and just because you don’t understand how or why doesn’t make it so.

Second, Josephus was not a contemporary. So he is not an eye witness. He also made two mentions of Jesus, one of which is clearly false because it contains language that an hasidic Jew would not use. The other major one was Tacitus and his sources are unknown (he was not a contemporary either), and it is entirely possible that his source was in fact Josephus.

If you had actually read my post you would see that I am not concerned with the historicity of Jesus as a man, but in the claim that “if you don’t witness it, it can’t be shown to be true”.

Since there are no eye witness accounts (NONE) in the bible (the gospels were not contemporary nor were they written by people who knew him) or in history of Jesus then that claim would (if true, which it is not) mean that your own beliefs would fall prey to it as well.

It is always better to read before commenting, as I made no comment on his historicity. I only referenced it to show the foolishness of a claim that needs eye witnesses for validation.

Peace

 

[buffalo]

A Third Way
James A. Shapiro
The recent reviews in your columns of books by Dennett, Dawkins, and Behe are testimony to
the unflagging interest in controversies about evolution. Although such purists as Dennett and
Dawkins repeatedly assert that the scientific issues surrounding evolution are basically solved
by conventional neo-Darwinism, the ongoing public fascination reveals a deeper wisdom.
There are far more unresolved questions than answers about evolutionary processes, and
contemporary science continues to provide us with new conceptual possibilities.

Unfortunately, readers of Boston Review may remain unaware of this intellectual ferment
because the debate about evolution continues to assume the quality of an abstract and
philosophical “dialogue of the deaf” between Creationists and Darwinists. Although our
knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary
expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare. The
possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered. In
my comments, then, I propose to sketch some developments in contemporary life science that
suggest shortcomings in orthodox evolutionary theory and open the door to very different
ways of formulating questions about the evolutionary process. After a discussion of technical
advances in our views about genome organization and the mechanisms of genetic change, I will
focus on a growing convergence between biology and information science which offe

more…

 

[EvolvedAtheist]

The parts of the Jewish Talmud composed in the 1st century never refers to Jesus as a trickster or fraud, but a sorcerer. Something to think about.

Also, see: the Moabite Stone, the Balaam inscription, and the Taylor prism.

Why is it something to think about that ancient man thought such things? If they heard stories about a man that their church did not accept, then why wouldn’t they brand him a sorcerer or a charlatan? Makes perfect sense.
The Talmud isn’t contemporary either so it doesn’t address the point that I made.

Peace

 

[EphelDuath]

Why is it something to think about that ancient man thought such things? If they heard stories about a man that their church did not accept, then why wouldn’t they brand him a sorcerer or a charlatan? Makes perfect sense.

It demonstrates that they thought his miracles were legitimately supernatural, when they have a clear motive to say otherwise.

The Talmud isn’t contemporary either so it doesn’t address the point that I made.

Yes it was.

 

[neophyte]

…SCIENCE would find the materials would act according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that is, DECAY…As a matter of fact, for evolution to be true it would have to be a** PERPETUAL-MOTION MACHINE**. But SCIENCE does not accept PERPETUAL-MOTION MACHINES…

The Second Law of Thermodynamics? Tell us, what training do you have in thermodynamics that makes you qualified to authoritatively discuss the topic?

My qualifications are that I hold a Bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering, graduated with honors from one of the toughest schools in the U.S. and got a 98.7 in thermo. I’ve been working in industry for sixteeen years, primarily on power generation systems.

 

[neophyte]

…Your post exhibits a critical failing to understand the science in evolution, or even what evolution is. You mix abiogenesis and evolution, chemical reactions with evolution, and mechanical motion with evolution. I can understand that it’s counter intuitive to accept evolution, but once you start to learn about it, you begin to see how it is the only explanation for the fact that species have changed over time. People who have no understanding of science should refrain from arguing the syllabus in science classrooms…

This is typical of cassini. He talks about science and waves his hands a lot, but seems utterly unwilling to deal with actual scientific analysis. He’s been challenged many times to show us the numbers, but to no avail. It’s very tedious.

 

[Contrabass101]

As a theology student at a secular university, I would like to add, that claiming that Jesus was not a historical person, is about as quasi-scientific as believing in a literal 6-day creation. Virtually no one in the academic world has held that view in the last 50-100 years. To simply disregard numerous very early sources who are allegedly based on eye-witnesses, simply because the writers are not considered “objective” is bad science. Scholars may argue, whether the historical Jesus was anything like what we read in the Gospels or not (it is generally accepted, that at least some of the sayings and actions are authentic - for instance his crucifixion, that he was known in his day as a healer and exorcist, and that he taught in the manners of a Jewish rabbi), but that he is a non-historical person… I think that is a statement you will only find on the internet, and in the books of biologists who think they are philosophers.

But as has been suggested already in this thread, science means a lot of things. The term encompass fields of study vastly different in purpose and methodology. Maths for instance, is scientific in a very pure sense, and its methodology is absolute, definitive proof. Most other “natural sciences” are (in principle at least) based on proposing a theory, that is refutable by experiment.

Most definitions of a scientific theory, hold that it should be falsifiable, and for lab-sciences, medicine, chemistry etc., this is a very useful definition. It also works for some branches of physics.

However, there are disciplines of science, that are not directly testable. History for instance. You can come up with a plausible historical theory, and archeology may seem to support it or not support it, but only after the data has been interpreted (itself a vast and difficult task). Someone may then propose a theory that seems to fit the data better if interpreted in another way. But there is not the same kind of absolute proof in history as in the laboratory, much less maths. You can not set the test conditions yourself, and you can not repeat as you like - you have to go with what history has left you.

Biblical sciences, such as exegesis is a whole other branch. Here it becomes even more obvious, that you can not refute a theory by experiment. Exegetical theories may be criticized, may be weighted against each other, but you can never have any absolute proof for or against. This of course doesn’t mean, that any theory is equally good - it only means that you will have to go with “possible to be criticized” rather than “falsifiable” in some branches of science.

The numerous theories that together make up what in lay-men’s terms is called “**The **Theory of Evolution” does not belong purely to one of these categories. It is a grand mixture of genetics, archeology, chemistry, biology, and sometimes even psychology. When atheist polemics throw in their own amateurish views on metaphysics, and present the whole bundle as “the scientific way”, confusion is complete!

The truth (as always) is a little more nuanced. It is true, that many of the evolutionary theories are pretty well grounded. It is also true, that some theories are obviously inadequate. It is probably also true, that many theories are based on nothing but an assumed consensus in the scientific community.

For those of us who are not trained in these scientific disciplines, it is probably futile to try and argue for one thing or another. What the pope has recognized, and others before him, is that there are no theological reasons not to believe in the theory of evolution. The Vatican can of course not dogmatically state that evolution is true… that would be way outside it’s field of expertise.

Evolution as a theory has proved very useful in many fields of science (especially medicine), it seems to make a reasonable explanation of the archaeological data at hand, and can to some extent be observed in the world today. It is not perfect by any means, but it is probably the best possible explanation.

• CB