Is The Theory of Evolution mandatory for the modern worldview

[drpmjhess]

I do not know.

It’s odd – and even irresponsible – that people with zero science education can come out with a huge claim such as that evolution is a hoax. Hoaxes take great care to produce and maintain, and I find it scarcely believable that 100,000 scientists and hundreds of institutions since 1859 have managed to maintain the secrecy necessary to support the hoax of evolution, without a single whistle-blower coming along to expose the conspiracy! I post below a partial list of scientific organizations supporting the theory of evolution.

Petrus

Scientific Institutions Supporting the Theory of Evolution

Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada
Alabama Academy of Science
American Anthropological Association
American Anthropological Association (2000) *
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1923)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1972)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1982)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (Commission on Science Education)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002)
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Astronomical Society
American Astronomical Society (2000)
American Astronomical Society (2005)
American Chemical Society
American Chemical Society (2005)
American Geological Institute
American Geophysical Union
American Geophysical Union (2003)
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Psychological Association (1982)
American Psychological Association (2007)
American Physical Society
American Society for Microbiology (2006)
American Society of Biological Chemists
American Society of Parasitologists
American Sociological Association (2006)
Association of Southeastern Biologists (2004)
Association for Women Geoscientists (1998)
Australian Academy of Science
Biophysical Society
Botanical Society of America
California Academy of Sciences
Committee for the Anthropology of Science, Technology, and Computing
Ecological Society of America (1999)
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (2005)
Genetics Society of America
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of America (2001)
Geological Society of Australia (1995)
Georgia Academy of Science (1980)
Georgia Academy of Science (1982)
Georgia Academy of Science (2003)
History of Science Society
Idaho Scientists for Quality Science Education
InterAcademy Panel (2006)
Iowa Academy of Science (1982)
Statement of the Position of the Iowa Academy of Science on Pseudoscience (1986)
Iowa Academy of Science (2000)
Kansas Academy of Science
Kentucky Academy of Science (2005)
Kentucky Paleontological Society Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (1999)
Louisiana Academy of Sciences
Louisiana Academy of Sciences (2006)
National Academy of Sciences (1972)
National Academy of Sciences (1984)
National Academy of Sciences (1998)
National Academy of Sciences (1999)
New Mexico Academy of Science (2006)
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy of Sciences
North American Benthological Society (2001)
North Carolina Academy of Science
North Carolina Academy of Science (1997)
Ohio Academy of Science
Ohio Academy of Science (2000)
Ohio Math and Science Coalition (2002)
Oklahoma Academy of Sciences
The Paleontological Society
Pennsylvania Academy of Science (2006)
Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists (2005)
Philosophy of Science Association (2000)
Research America (2005)
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada - Ottawa Centre (2007)
The Royal Society (2006)
Royal Society of Canada (2006)
Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Society for Amateur Scientists
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (2001)
Society for Neuroscience
Society for Neuroscience (2006)
Society for Organic Petrology
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Physics Students (1999)
Society of Physics Students (2003)
Society of Systematic Biologists (2001)
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1986)
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1994)
Southern Anthropological Society
Tallahassee Scientific Society
Tennessee Darwin Coalition
Virginia Academy of Science (1981)
West Virginia Academy of Science

 

[ricmat]

There are some posts that are made here that can be very… uncharitable to scientists. Including the often-made contention that they are either part of some conspiracy or are just too unknowledgeable of their own field to have resolved certain questions.

Both sides, (or since there are more than 2) all sides should refrain from such language IMO.

I disagree a bit with what you say above. Certainly, many have questioned certain scientific findings, and the scientists are obviously entitled to disagree, and provide counter arguments. But just having a difference of opinion with somebody “knowledgeable in their field” is not in itself uncharitable - especially since we all know that what is considered scientific truth evolves over time (pun sort-of intended). It seems to me that at times, those who consider themselves experts in their field tend to get quite upset that people just don’t agree with them, and resort to the kind of language in the above post.

And unfortunately, uncharitable posts lead to counter barrages from the other side. I think everybody should stop it.

 

[ricmat]

It’s odd – and even irresponsible – that people with zero science education can come out with a huge claim such as that evolution is a hoax. Hoaxes take great care to produce and maintain, and I find it scarcely believable that 100,000 scientists and hundreds of institutions since 1859 have managed to maintain the secrecy necessary to support the hoax of evolution, without a single whistle-blower coming along to expose the conspiracy! I post below a partial list of scientific organizations supporting the theory of evolution.

Petrus

snip…

So why do you feel the need to respond?

 

[drpmjhess]

So why do you feel the need to respond?

Duty-bound to argue for the truth, I guess. I would argue the same if someone on Catholic Answers started holding forth vociferously for the inclusion of astrology or alchemy in university offerings.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

There are some posts that are made here that can be very… uncharitable to scientists. Including the often-made contention that they are either part of some conspiracy or are just too unknowledgeable of their own field to have resolved certain questions.

Unknowledgeable? No. The contention is that scientific naturalism is the ruling paradigm and no dissent is allowed.

Conspiracy? No. The fact is that certain groups, namely secular humanists, brights, free thinkers, atheists, Marxists and Leftists, are promoting a Godless, immoral America through the media. And on this forum.

“Show me God. If you can show me God, I might believe in him.”

I’m sure nothing posted here prevents any scientist anywhere from going to work and doing whatever it is he does. The problem is that some people here want the Catholic Church, and its followers, to conform to the world. “We gots facts. Youse can’t ignore dem.”

The Catholic Church has not infallibly ruled on the age of the earth.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

Duty-bound to argue for the truth, I guess. I would argue the same if someone on Catholic Answers started holding forth vociferously for the inclusion of astrology or alchemy in university offerings.

Petrus

Note: philosophizing below not directed at anyone in particular…

[philosophizing mode on]

My feeling is that we’ll only find out the truth (scientific) at The End. And that we will all (experts and amateurs alike) discover that we have all been wrong, by orders of magnitude, about everything.

And that the things we thought were so important actually didn’t matter.

And what did matter is how we treated each other. And we will have the opportunity to review our pursuit of truth, and how our view of ourselves affected how we treated others.

[philosophizing mode = off]

 

[edwest2]

“Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary, the devil, goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour.”

They no longer wished to endure sound doctrine and were turned aside to fables. And to the worship of themselves. We have no need of God or religion. WE will be as gods.

“If you love me keep my commandments.” Jesus Christ

God bless,
Ed

 

[steveandersen]

Unknowledgeable?

That is the implication of some of the material posted on AIG or the Kolbe center

e.g. promoting a book that calls evolution a fairy tale is saying in no uncertain terms that a lot of scientists have spent years in the lab and missed something obvious and important.

No. The contention is that scientific naturalism is the ruling paradigm and no dissent is allowed.

Of course scientific naturalism is the ruling paradigm in the natural sciences.
How could it be otherwise?

Conspiracy?

You did just say on the other thread that people who hold with evolution have been “fooled by atheists”

That suggest a plan, an organization, and an attempt to hide some “truth”
AKA a conspiracy
You’ve said similar things both on this thread and on others

No. The fact is that certain groups, namely secular humanists, brights, free thinkers, atheists, Marxists and Leftists, are promoting a Godless, immoral America through the media. And on this forum.

(Point of order does this constitute a breach of Godwin’s law in spirit?)

Science is not normative.
It is not leftist or rightist, theist or atheist.
The bridge will stand up, the plane fly, or the drugs work whether a Marxist or a Capitalist invented it.
1+1=2 whether the Pope or the Dalai Lama do the math

You keep blaming biology for not being what it isn’t supposed to be.

“Show me God. If you can show me God, I might believe in him.”

Evidence for God is all around us as confirmed by CCC 31-35

If we believe that there are “proofs” for God n the sense of “converging and convincing arguments” and that we are here to do apologetics why would you object to someone making that statement?

I’m sure nothing posted here prevents any scientist anywhere from going to work and doing whatever it is he does. The problem is that some people here want the Catholic Church, and its followers, to conform to the world. “We gots facts. Youse can’t ignore dem.”

Well since faith and reason can’t contradict it seems difficult and probably imprudent to ignore facts.

Apologetics can be difficult enough just trying to overcome a non-believer’s misconception of theological teachings of the Church. If they are also convinced that Christianity = young earth creationism then we’ve lost them.

The Catholic Church has not infallibly ruled on the age of the earth.

Nor will She. It is not a matter of faith and morals.

 

[drpmjhess]

My feeling is that we’ll only find out the truth (scientific) at The End. And that we will all (experts and amateurs alike) discover that we have all been wrong, by orders of magnitude, about everything.

And that the things we thought were so important actually didn’t matter.]

ricmat, I like 6the spirit of your post, and I agree that we will only know the whole picture eschatologically. However,

(1) I don’t agree that we will find out we’ve been orders of magnitude wrong on all things, like mathematics, physiology, epidemiology, geology, physics, evolutionary biology, etc. Human knowledge about the physical world and how it works has become more and more accurate since Aristotle . Bigger picture issues, of course – such as the Big Bang and what was before – I agree we may never learn much about these.

(2) I don’t agree that “the things we thought were so important actually didn’t matter.” If understanding evolution helps us to develop antibiotics so that Nigerian children don’t die needless and horrible deaths, I think that really matters.

Apart from this, I agree with you!

Petrus

 

[reggieM]

Who is this Kenneth Baker character? I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered such mindboggling scientific ignorance in 28 years of teaching and conference participation!

In 28 years of Catholic “conference participation” you’ve never heard of Fr. Kenneth Baker, editor of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review. Normally, I should find that “mindboggling” but I know what most Catholic educational forums have been like over the past 28 years, so that explains why you didn’t know this. Call to Action, We Are Church, Voice of the Faithful – groups like that have conferences every year with Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Hans Kung and Fr. Richard McBrien as the headliners.

Fr. Baker is a great priest who fought for orthodoxy in Catholic teaching when there were almost no voices doing so – and he continues that fight today with growing support.

(You should pick up a copy of HPR sometime. I think any Catholic educator should be informed about that publication.)

 

[reggieM]

The Un-Darwinian Sacrifice of Maximilian Kolbe

news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/01/14/the-un-darwinian-sacrifice-of-maximilian-kolbe/64

Consider the true story of the Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe, who was imprisoned in a German concentration camp for his anti-Nazi activities. Each day the Nazis would choose one person from the group for execution. One of the first persons they selected was a man who pleaded for his life, saying he had a wife and children who were dependent on him and he needed to live in order to look after them. Just as the Nazis were about to drag him from the room, the priest stood up and said, “Take me in his place.” The Nazis were baffled and refused, but the priest insisted. The man was equally uncomprehending, so the priest told him, “I don’t have a family, I am old and won’t be missed like you will.” The Nazis finally agreed, and the priest went to his death. The man whose place he took survived the war and returned to his family.

Now what is the Darwinian explanation for Kolbe’s behavior? It does not exist. Ernest Mayr, a leading evolutionary biologist, admits that “altruism toward strangers is behavior not supported by natural selection.” Richard Dawkins concedes that Darwinism cannot even explain why people donate blood, an action he puts down to “pure disinterested altruism.” I enjoy reading Pinker, Trivers and the others, but I don’t think that the Darwin Cleanup Crew is going to come up with a comprehensive account of morality. The simple reason is that the evolutionary project is necessarily confined to the domain of survival and reproductive advantage–in other words, to the domain of self-interest–while it is the essence of morality to operate against self-interest. The whole point of morality is to do what you ought to do, not what you are inclined to do or what it is in your interest to do.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Maximillian Kolbe was a priest, a physicist, and a mathematician. It would be odd indeed if he was a creationist. This wouldn’t necessarily stop creationists from borrowing the name of a much-beloved saint to provide an air of respectability.

After all, William Dembski, in his attempt to bring ID to Baylor University named his organization “The Polanyi Center”, when Michael Polanyi was (apart from his denial of the scientific method) not favorable to creationist ideas.

 

[ricmat]

ricmat, I like 6the spirit of your post, and I agree that we will only know the whole picture eschatologically. However,

(1) I don’t agree that we will find out we’ve been orders of magnitude wrong on all things, like mathematics, physiology, epidemiology, geology, physics, evolutionary biology, etc. Human knowledge about the physical world and how it works has become more and more accurate since Aristotle . Bigger picture issues, of course – such as the Big Bang and what was before – I agree we may never learn much about these.

(2) I don’t agree that “the things we thought were so important actually didn’t matter.” If understanding evolution helps us to develop antibiotics so that Nigerian children don’t die needless and horrible deaths, I think that really matters.

Apart from this, I agree with you!

Petrus

I agree with you. I’m an engineer, so applied science is my thing. I was thinking mainly of the big picture things as well in my post. And things like positions in the list that someone posted earlier…

 

[edwest2]

You are clearly from the “religion is over here and science is over there” school of thought.

You also seem to be operating under the dual view system of viewing the Church. Example, “The Church does not or cannot do science.” Well, there’s the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. And there is the much discussed Gallileo affair.

This is about a power struggle between secular forces and, in this case, the Catholic Church.

It may interest you to know that the Catholic Church does not accept certain theories of evolution. It is not enough that some declare some things “facts.” Pope Benedict has stated, after the much ballyhooed statement made by Pope John Paul II about evolution, “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

As Pope, he has the authority to make such a statement. It is also nonsensical to compare gravity, electricity or even medicine to the theory of evolution. As you may know, evolution is part of the atheist tool kit. It is a weapon. The only issue that truly matters is: IS Jesus Christ the Son of God who lived, died and was buried so that sins would be forgiven?"

That is the only issue that matters. Even in the Bible, one of the apostles recommends using a medicinal wine. However, today, a body exists in the Church for The Causes of Saints. Two miracles are required before someone can be named a saint. These things are generally ignored by the secular world.

In the scientific community, there is a relationship between the object observed and the observer. And, once again, the issue is not at what temperature does water freeze? It is about human identity and human dignity, and our relationship with our Creator.

Even in the scientific community, there are a few, and one only needs a few, knowledge filters. They decide that certain ideas are acceptable and others are not. Pope John Paul II spoke of design in nature, but people have been trained. Yes, trained. To respond to any such idea first with emotion and then angry words of dismissal. Cardinal Schoenborn has taken note of this.

I find it perfectly reasonable to believe that all life on this planet was created to exist in an interdependent way, with very little chance and very little natural selection.

I suggest you consider that everything you read is a form of advertising. Not just for physical products but also of ideas. It is a way to engineer consent among the common people. This society we live in no longer has people walking about in robes and wearing crowns but the underlying structure is quite similar to its medieval counterpart.

There are individuals on the internet who are paid by special interests to promote products and ideas on the internet. They are called “astroturf” after the fake grass. They may look like real 'grassroots" people but they are, in fact, paid lobbyists to the masses like you and I.

The Bible warns against false teachers and deception. Science, yes, science, can be manipulated. It is done by humans for use by humans. Evolution, as evidenced by my many visits to atheist/secular humanist/bright/free thinker web sites, is being regarded as the perfect tool to sweep religion out of the minds and lives of the average person. This is a fact you can check for yourself.

It would be appropriate to note here that this was the Communist goal in the 1920s. That the State would produce propaganda against religion and all superstitious beliefs among the people. They had some formidable barriers in that grandparents might teach religion to their grandkids or that some would secretly spread religious ideas. The goal was the same as it is today: A “new man” will emerge. Free of the “opiate of the people,” he would, today, be mired in a life filled with real opiates and other illegal drugs, dysfunctional relationships and only have value in his utilitarian uses: soldier and worker for the State.

Study some history, it tends to repeat itself.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

The NAS claims that evolution has yielded great benefits in biomedicine and agriculture, but again, other scientists disagree. University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne admitted in Nature, “improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’.”

Even when it comes to fighting antibiotic resistant superbugs, Coyne observed, “Evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say.”

 

[Namesake]

You are clearly from the “religion is over here and science is over there” school of thought.

Well, if that comment is directed to me, then my answer is of course, science and religion are separate.

It may interest you to know that the Catholic Church does not accept certain theories of evolution. It is not enough that some declare some things “facts.” Pope Benedict has stated, after the much ballyhooed statement made by Pope John Paul II about evolution, “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Evolution is not complete. No science is ever complete. Evolution is based on a great deal of evidence but it has not been proven in a final sense.

As Pope, he has the authority to make such a statement.

To the best of my knowledge the Pope has no scientific credentials therefore he has no standing in the scientific community.

As you may know, evolution is part of the atheist tool kit. It is a weapon.

No, I don’t know that, and you don’t know that either. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, nothing more.

In the scientific community, there is a relationship between the object observed and the observer. And, once again, the issue is not at what temperature does water freeze? It is about human identity and human dignity, and our relationship with our Creator.

You are mistaken. Science isn’t interested in human identity, human dignity, or a Creator.

Even in the scientific community, there are a few, and one only needs a few, knowledge filters. They decide that certain ideas are acceptable and others are not. Pope John Paul II spoke of design in nature, but people have been trained. Yes, trained. To respond to any such idea first with emotion and then angry words of dismissal. Cardinal Schoenborn has taken note of this.

Science is guided by the scientific method. Scientific method certainly does discard some ideas based on the principles of the scientific method. It isn’t at all emotional. It’s objective.

I find it perfectly reasonable to believe that all life on this planet was created to exist in an interdependent way, with very little chance and very little natural selection.

Good for you. Science doesn’t work that way. Believe what you like, science isn’t about belief, it’s about evidence.

Evolution, as evidenced by my many visits to atheist/secular humanist/bright/free thinker web sites, is being regarded as the perfect tool to sweep religion out of the minds and lives of the average person. This is a fact you can check for yourself.

Science doesn’t have an interest in religion. I have checked that idea out for quite a long time now and I assure you that the theory of evolution might very well unsettle you, but it is not at all interested in sweeping religion out of any one’s mind. You are simply mistaken.

It would be appropriate to note here that this was the Communist goal in the 1920s. That the State would produce propaganda against religion and all superstitious beliefs among the people. They had some formidable barriers in that grandparents might teach religion to their grandkids or that some would secretly spread religious ideas. The goal was the same as it is today: A “new man” will emerge. Free of the “opiate of the people,” he would, today, be mired in a life filled with real opiates and other illegal drugs, dysfunctional relationships and only have value in his utilitarian uses: soldier and worker for the State.

I think you have gone very far afield. Science is not a conspiracy. Science is…well, science. That’s all. Nothing that is threatening anyone.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The NAS claims that evolution has yielded great benefits in biomedicine and agriculture, but again, other scientists disagree. University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne admitted in Nature, “improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’.”

While people have been breeding animals and plants for a long time, the use of evolutionary theory has made it somewhat easier to get a quantitative prediction of the outcome of various strategies. Here’s an example:
**In my view, the best strategy for dog breeders is carefully planned assortative mating combined with an attempt to minimize or at least reduce the inbreeding coefficient. In practice, if I am asked for an opinion on a suitable mate for a Standard Poodle, I suggest that the breeder assemble a list of dogs he/she would consider breeding to, based on conformation, temperament and whatever other criteria are deemed relevant, and I will tell them the inbreeding coefficient for each potential litter and also about the prominent ancestors in the pedigree. My personal criterion is a 10-generation COI under 10%, but I might pick one close to that, or even a bit over, if I liked the other qualities.

The COI has predictive value. I can tell you that an SP inbred to only 5% will, on average, live about 3 years longer than one bred to 35%, and I can tell you that a 10% increase will likely reduce litter size by about 7%. Both these effects are, in my opinion, most likely to result from accumulation of suboptimal alleles with small individual effects. However, inbreeding also increases the probability of doubling up on any obviously deleterious traits carried by a shared ancestor. I understand why breeders inbreed (or linebreed), but I don’t agree that it is necessary to produce good dogs (see Inbreeding and Diversity). As to the claim that it can be used to uncover problems in the line, I agree, but I can also give you case histories where the breeder has proceeded to ignore a hereditary problem uncovered this way, and as a result spread it through the breed.

Neither population genetics nor modern DNA technology is going to provide magical solutions to all our problems. However, used together, they may take us through the 21st Century. Continued reliance on the models put forward in the early days of genetics almost certainly will not. **
canine-genetics.com/pgbreed.htm

Even when it comes to fighting antibiotic resistant superbugs, Coyne observed, “Evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say.”

Well, that’s kind of an older quote, maybe…

**Experimental Prediction of the Natural Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
Miriam Barlowa and Barry G. Halla
a Biology Department, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627-0211

Corresponding author: Barry G. Hall, Hutchison Hall, River Campus, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0211., drbh@mail.rochester.edu (E-mail)

Communicating editor: H. OCHMAN

The TEM family of ß-lactamases has evolved to confer resistance to most of the ß-lactam antibiotics, but not to cefepime. To determine whether the TEM ß-lactamases have the potential to evolve cefepime resistance, we evolved the ancestral TEM allele, TEM-1, in vitro and selected for cefepime resistance. After four rounds of mutagenesis and selection for increased cefepime resistance each of eight independent populations reached a level equivalent to clinical resistance. All eight evolved alleles increased the level of cefepime resistance by a factor of at least 32, and the best allele improved by a factor of 512. Sequencing showed that alleles contained from two to six amino acid substitutions, many of which were shared among alleles, and that the best allele contained only three substitutions.**

Surprise.

 

[drpmjhess]

The NAS claims that evolution has yielded great benefits in biomedicine and agriculture, but again, other scientists disagree. University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne admitted in Nature, "improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’.

Yes, that just demonstrates that the mechanism of descent with modification works. It happened in the natural world for millions of years before people even existed. Darwin used evidence from animal and plant husbandry as evidence in the Origin.

 

[edwest2]

Well, if that comment is directed to me, then my answer is of course, science and religion are separate.

Evolution is not complete. No science is ever complete. Evolution is based on a great deal of evidence but it has not been proven in a final sense.

To the best of my knowledge the Pope has no scientific credentials therefore he has no standing in the scientific community.

No, I don’t know that, and you don’t know that either. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, nothing more.

You are mistaken. Science isn’t interested in human identity, human dignity, or a Creator.

Science is guided by the scientific method. Scientific method certainly does discard some ideas based on the principles of the scientific method. It isn’t at all emotional. It’s objective.

Good for you. Science doesn’t work that way. Believe what you like, science isn’t about belief, it’s about evidence.

Science doesn’t have an interest in religion. I have checked that idea out for quite a long time now and I assure you that the theory of evolution might very well unsettle you, but it is not at all interested in sweeping religion out of any one’s mind. You are simply mistaken.

I think you have gone very far afield. Science is not a conspiracy. Science is…well, science. That’s all. Nothing that is threatening anyone.

More nonsense. No one would be here disagreeing about “science” if that were the case. You will note that the Church does not warn against electricity or magnetism or plumbing but it does concern itself with evolution. I suggest you look up the Pontifical Academy of Sciences online. The Catholic Church does science and comments on science and scientific policy all the time.

Peace,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

More nonsense. No one would be here disagreeing about “science” if that were the case. You will note that the Church does not warn against electricity or magnetism or plumbing but it does concern itself with evolution. I suggest you look up the Pontifical Academy of Sciences online. The Catholic Church does science and comments on science and scientific policy all the time.Peace,Ed

Ed I see the the Academy has an upcoming conference on Plenary Session on “Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life” (31 October - 4 November 2008). Will they be supporting or attacking evolution at this conference?