National Academies book on evolution


What do you think this paper will do to the ID issue? Will those who stand against evolution for theologic reasons come to better understandings?
Science, Evolution, and Creationism


I do not know but I thing that while the document will set the legals ground to keep creationism and ID out of public highschools in the US I do not think it will change the teology of fundies at all.


It won’t do a thing. People who oppose evolution do it not because of science but because of their faith.




lack of faith that is.


Hi Tim,

Evolution makes very little sense to me. The more I read here, the less sensible it appears. And I’m not just mentioning this to bother you (and I honestly don’t want to bother you) but to let everyone know. The idea that radiation, mutation, environmental pressures and genetic drift causing modern life, is a bit out of the realm of possibility. Have scientists gained a greater understanding of disease, of course. But evolution - most people forget about it after high school. Most will not need to use it at work or home.

God bless,


Have you read Thank God for Evolution? You can get a free pdf online.


Yes, I have. It is called Snake Oil. Atheism wrapped in the false clothing of religion. It’s just the same old thing in a new package.

"Just use my method and poof! Instant world peace, the common brotherhood of man and cures baldness!

The only reason some people don’t recognize it is because they haven’t studied history and “The News” is all about Brad, Jen, Angelina, Britney and so on… ad nauseum.

God bless,


Report from the NAS Book Release
Logan Gage

Today I attended the release of the third edition of the NAS’s book Science, Evolution, and Creationism—by which, of course, they mean any way of thought which doubts the materialist mechanism of natural selection to account for the full complexity of life.

The entire event was a transparent attempt to label any doubters “creationists.”

Most ironic was that, while the whole room fumed with animosity toward religious people and, one sensed, the “religious right,” the NAS panelists sought to promote the view of the new booklet that science and religion do not conflict because the two ways of knowing do not overlap.

As Richard Dawkins has noted, this is a blatant political and rhetorical strategy, believed by very few who advance this proposition. For instance, while panelist Gilbert Omenn argued this “no conflict” thesis, he also remarked that no one would have designed certain features of human anatomy the way they are. Hmmm, so science can legitimately make claims about whether there biological features are designed? Sounds like they are asking for a one-sided armistice. :wink:

Of course what they mean to say is that “reasonable” religion has no problem with materialistic Darwinian evolution. Thus the NAS book quotes a host of liberal religious leaders to prove their point.

In a similar contradictory moment, Francisco Ayala claimed that there is “no contradiction between evolution and religious faith.” Then later, when mentioning the liberal religious leaders quoted in the NAS booklet, he slipped on a Freudian banana peal, saying: “I used religious authorities”…ahem…he went on to claim that he meant to say that he “cited” those religious authorities.

I won’t belabor my report, but the panelists—who also included former NABT President Toby Horn and former NAS President Bruce Alberts—further strained credulity by actually claiming that medicine and agriculture depend upon evolutionary theory. If they mean micro-evolution, this is obviously true; but of course no one doubts micro-evolution.

In truth, the book release event was one platitude after another. Perhaps reporters writing on this event will have the courage to ask the NAS which intelligent design proponents they interviewed or consulted to ensure the accuracy of their statements about intelligent design. From looking through the booklet, one suspects they consulted only their own prejudices.

In the end, the NAS should know that their efforts will fail. For in addition to the many religious concerns with Darwinian theory in the public, there are a host of academics who harbor serious scientific doubts as to the adequacy of the Darwinian mechanism to account for life’s complexity.


You are just as biast against evolution as I once was. Darwin was a theologain. Lemaitre was a priest. They were the best in their fields in science because of their unwillingness to let bias determne their course of action.
ID is just the oposite. It starts with bias and ends with confusion.


In a similar contradictory moment, Francisco Ayala claimed that there is “no contradiction between evolution and religious faith.”

He must have been talking to the Pope, um?


Bias? Why come here and post when the facts are the facts and are undisputed? As far as ID goes, if most are convinced that it’s not science then why mention it? Evolution fact, ID not science. All done.

But no - the rhetoric continues.

Ideology is always the issue.

God bless,



You’re misrepresenting Darwin as a man of faith:

The Reluctant Mr. Darwin, David Quammen (2006)

By the writing of his autobiography in 1876 the effects of that “bold theory,” as Quammen tells it, had him also declaring Christianity “a damnable doctrine.” Thus Darwin becomes for Quammen the reluctant scientist and the reluctant agnostic. In fact, these two themes are symbiotic and serve to facilitate the view of a wholly objective scientific theory divorced from any taint of theistic intention. In the end – science vindicated, theology dethroned! – that is Quamman’s leitmotif.

As for Darwin’s loss of faith, all the biographers just mentioned adopt the gradualist theme. Desmond and Moore sum it up most succinctly by saying, “Even if, in his clear-headed confusion, he was agnostic about his agnosticism on occasions, in ten years it had become the respectable thing.”

Pain real or feigned, Darwin eventually stated that he simply couldn’t see the evidence for Christianity, and he always claimed that the “disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete . . . [and] never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.” Darwin had no need for any kind of Creator.

Darwin eschewed religious faith for a different kind of faith, a faith in cold, hard “facts” or so he claimed.

Darwin’s version of man as an animal left little room for a divine spark and it bespoke his agnostic convictions. But Darwin was also always emphatic that this came to him comparatively late in life. Playing host to the visiting Ludwig Büchner, famed German atheist, eight months before Darwin’s death in April of 1882, the Down House patriarch insisted that he hadn’t given up on Christianity until forty years of age.[16] Quammen underscores the point by writing, “years of studying the fixed laws of nature had eroded his credence in miracles, and he ‘gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as divine revelation.’ There was no smugness and no hastiness to his loss of faith; it happened almost against his will.”


Perhaps a good warning for those who have a growing and passionate faith in science while their faith in Christ grows cold.

It certainly happened to Darwin that way.


Just out of curiosity, how many people use linguistics, forensics, particle physics, astronomy, geology, cartography, seismology, neurology, osteology, organic chemistry, fluid dynamics, or quantum mechanics at work or home on a regular basis?

If I were to decide that any science that I didn’t use on a regular basis wasn’t sensible, the world would be plunged back into the dark age.


As far as ID goes, if most are convinced that it’s not science then why mention it?

Excellent question.

Evolution fact, ID not science. All done.

That’s all there is to it. No further discussion needed. :rolleyes:


How many people argue emotionally, to the point of using sarcasm, ridicule and insults, about linguistics, forensics, particle physics, astronomy, geology, cartography, seismology, neurology, osteology, organic chemistry, fluid dynamics, or quantum mechanics?


I’m at a loss about what your question is trying to address.

Are you just trying to slam me for being insulting, ridiculing, and insulting? If so, that’s fine. I’ve been getting that a lot lately. I just want to be clear.


Are you saying that you should ignore branches of science that people argue about? Because that’s a really bad idea.


Plunged back into the dark age. I’ve seen that vague non-responsive response many times. It reminds me of the quote from Casablanca: He’s as honest as the day is long. The earth will not stop spinning on its axis if more people ignore materialistic, naturalistic evolution. Give me a break.

God bless,


Let me play the coy game that the evolutionists here play, Sideline.

Neither of your options.


That selection pressures can change the nature of a group of animals sufficiently that they both breed true and are not acceptable to the source population’s differentialy pressured main stock.

THis has been experimentally proven with worms and wolves.

It is observationally noted with newts around a large californian lake; the newts at either end will not breed, but they both breed with the newts in between.

Pick what features you like, and encourage their reproduction by culling those without and breeding those with. Thank-you Fr. Mendel for making science out of this.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit