Daring to question Darwin
Intellectuals may stamp their feet and clutch their pearls all they want, but the debate, for so long taboo, is on again.
Intellectuals may stamp their feet and clutch their pearls all they want, but the debate, for so long taboo, is on again.
There are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture.
Today, the Pope Pius V University in Rome will be the setting for a day-long conference with the arresting title, The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution.
The intuition of human experience that there is intelligent design in the universe is so overwhelming that only ideology would deny it a hearing alongside any other theories about the origin of life.
Cardinal Schonborn recently wrote an opinion-page article in the New York Times on evolution. What was the real point he made in that piece?
In the summer of 1925, a small town in Tennessee became a hub of intense international interest when famed defence lawyer Clarence Darrow squared off against progressive politician William Jennings Bryan over a Tennessee law that forbade the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools. Here, in summary, are the often-distorted facts of the case.
Catholics should not hesitate to get involved in the debate over Darwins theory, especially since they occupy a reasonable middle ground between scientific and biblical fundamentalists.
The analysis of creation and the distinctions Thomas Aquinas draws among the domains of metaphysics, the natural sciences, and theology can serve an important role in contemporary discussions of the relationship between creation and evolution.
The trouble with evolution as an account of the way things work is that, if it is wrong, then a Creator must exist. There is no way around it. No wonder atheists are frightened.
In response to the recent Kansas Board of Educations decision not to teach the Theory of Evolution, Michael Behe's New York Times editorial argues that we should teach Darwins elegant theory, but also be willing to discuss where it has real problems accounting for the data and where scientists seem to be engaged in wishful thinking.