Just to address some of the comments on evolution’s impact on morals – is it possible to agree with Natural Selection & Survival of the Fittest and give to charity?

Those concepts describe a system and processes of ‘why’, not of ’should or should not’. Natural Selection tells us that if it benefits the species and it is done then the species will prosper. It does not tell us in any way shape or form that we will be able to judge what the long term outcome of an action or environmental impact or trait will be, so therefore we should act in a certain manner.

For instance, acting charitably for many helps improve self esteem and self worth, which of course could offset effects of depression. Happy people live longer, and are probably more likely to attract a mate. It is very possible therefore that ‘being charitable’ could develop as a genetic trait, being passed on by those happy people who wind up propagating, whereas those miserable self serving SOB’s who never get laid wind up dying out. However, this does not mean that Natural Selection ‘tells us’ to be charitable. It merely describe and helps to explain why a species is the way it is. It is always in retrospect, and it can change, because what is beneficial at one point on the evolutionary ladder might very well fatal on another.

It is as much hubrus as those that try to tell you that god does not exist.

I think the only realization you can make is that it is beyond our capabilities to understand the motivations and actions of a being known as god.

The church will of course appear to modernize over time, you could consider this changing of doctrine or you could consider that modern people become the leaders of the church.

Wow, where does one start. How about Noah’s Arc, the Earth could not possibly have EVER been completely covered by rain water. It is an impossibility. I don’t need to go on, but I could.

It is your kind of blind faith espoused without inspection or analysis that stuns me. It is beyond ridiculous for us to debate the “factual” basis of the Bible. It is a collection of stories edited by men with politics and agendas. THAT is a fact acknowledged by the Catholic Church and every other Christian denomination. Google the “Council of Nicaea” if you dispute my assertion.

@Avinash – I’m not so sure the Catholic Church is giving in to modern trends. Remember it believes in revelation through scripture and tradition and as such recognises theology as a study that develops (or evolves!). The Church also has a very strong belief in accepting truth from any source.

@Gerry – You may also be interested in Scott Hahn’s book – A Father Who Keeps His Promises – which offers a different description of the Genesis creation narratives.

the Times article says that Archbishop Ravasi conceded “that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his theory appeared to conflict with the account of creation in Genesis.” But I think you’re right that the Catholic Church didn’t kick up nearly as much of a fuss as the Anglican Church.

And I suppose that evolution can teach how interpret the religious teaching.
If we understand correctly the spiritual teachings, we will also prosper and we could evolve as better beings. If we understand wrongly the spiritual teaching, we will not prosper and will not evolve as better beings.

We could study any religion as a meme complex in a complex habitat, competing with many other meme complexes (other religions).
But we can study the evolution and see the religion as something that select for the right types of people to prosper and the wrong type of people to be extincted.

I only ask becaus eit my understanding the Cathoic Church was the least rocked by the proposal of evolution because it believes in revaltion through scipture and tradition, not sola scriptura … As John Hardon, S.J. says in his Catholic Catechism, “Charles Darwin (1809-82) undoubtedly sparked a new era in anthropology and allied sciences, but Darwinism as such had only minimal impact in Catholic thought, whereas it struck many believers in evangelical Protestantism like a tornado.”

Lots of people read the bible each day. Isn’t it strange how not two of them can agree on what it means? And all around the world, people believe the weirdest things just because they’ve been told to believe them. Some of them dare to take a look at WHAT they’ve been told. Some of them grow up and find that the things they’ve been told, like the very things spelled out in black and white in the bible, contradict themselves and are just convenient lies to keep the peasants down and friendly by replacing respect and honesty with pre-made non-answers that sound good when spelled from a pulpit. Some don’t.

Perchance, if you read something ELSE than the bible, you’d notice that there’s no difference between “evolution” and “macro-evolution”. And that “half-baked” is not the right word for something that stood up to scrutiny again and again, like “just-a-theory” of evolution did.

In less words: I disagree with what you said.