NationStates Jolt Archive

The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design'' isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate raging in the United States.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_051118_ID_vatican.html

This Comes After Pope John Paul II Defended The Theory Of Evolution

here:

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2005/11/vatican_endorse.htm

Refreshing.

Not sure an astronomer is the right person to be saying this but whatever, all help is appreciated.

Not sure an astronomer is the right person to be saying this but whatever, all help is appreciated.

you dont understand, thats like saying rove came out and said something. we would say it was straight from the white house

and the late Pope John Paul II endorsed Evolution. He said that it was ok for catholics to believe in it

Jesus used parables a great deal, I don't see why the writers of Genesis didn't.

"If your god can be dismantled by modern science - get a better god."

Jesus used parables a great deal, I don't see why the writers of Genesis didn't.

"If your god can be dismantled by modern science - get a better god."

God does not do things randomly. he enacted laws. for example, for the law of gravity. it was originally thought God pushed things down with his own hands and made them fall back towards earth. this would not make him all-powerful.

"It is hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He would choose to play dice with the world...is something that I cannot believe for a single moment." Albert Einstein

he doesnt do stuff randomly

So? The catholic church has endorsed evolution since 1950. They're not the ones who are fighting.

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, 12 August 1950 (http://academic.regis.edu/mghedott/humanigeneris.htm)
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

I guess that letter writing campaign to the pope paid off.

God does not do things randomly. he enacted laws. for example, for the law of gravity. it was originally thought God pushed things down with his own hands and made them fall back towards earth. this would not make him all-powerful.

"It is hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He would choose to play dice with the world...is something that I cannot believe for a single moment." Albert Einstein

he doesnt do stuff randomly Very glad to hear that, because evolution is not random. I believe that everything was put here for a reason. The world has taken some very strange courses.

"It is hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He would choose to play dice with the world...is something that I cannot believe for a single moment." Albert Einstein

he doesnt do stuff randomly
"Einstein, stop telling God what to do." Neils Bohr

What makes you think you can see into God's mind with such clarity?
God does stuff any way she wants. That's what omnipotence means.

faith, my friend, faith. if He did things randomly, i would have a hard time believing that He is all powerful

I guess that letter writing campaign to the pope paid off.

No, it was the NS General forum poll that was posted a few weeks ago. ;)

faith, my friend, faith. if He did things randomly, i would have a hard time believing that He is all powerful

Christianity doesn't function without God acting randomly, otherwise he has no reason to act. Science is the only way to avoid a random universe.

Christianity doesn't function without God acting randomly, otherwise he has no reason to act. Science is the only way to avoid a random universe.

look, im not trying to say youre wrong. im saying that that is my belief. it is true that we dont know for sure.

"Einstein, stop telling God what to do." Neils Bohr

What makes you think you can see into God's mind with such clarity?
God does stuff any way she wants. That's what omnipotence means. Sexism! Radical feminist lesbian separatism! (sorry, it's from my politics book)

Great Science applies to Evolution atlast.

How long before the Pope admits Miricles and "coming back to life" is also scientifically impossible :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Great Science applies to Evolution atlast.

How long before the Pope admits Miricles and "coming back to life" is also scientifically impossible :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

when one goes into cardiac arrest, they are medically dead. they can be revived. therefore, coming back from the dead. i know this from being a lifeguard

when one goes into cardiac arrest, they are medically dead. they can be revived. therefore, coming back from the dead. i know this from being a lifeguard

How about being nailed to a cross and coming back to life 3 days later or however the bible likes to tell it.

"It is hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He would choose to play dice with the world...is something that I cannot believe for a single moment." Albert EinsteinThat was, of course, Einstein's way of dismissing the wierdness of quantum theory, something that (despite arising from some of his own calculations) he really did not like.

I think (though would not presume to say for sure) that Einstein prefered the idea of a deterministic universe, where the randomness evident at sub-Planck scales (in time and space) did not exist or (my personal prefered theory, if I have to have one) that it is determinsitic, even the quantum fluctuations, but that from our 'inside of the Universe' observation point the resolution of such observations is such that the details of the GUT/TOE rules are lost within the too-low resolution of the universe (i.e. those Planck lengths and times) and the troublesome problems of "knowing eveything about everything" raised by Heisenburg.


Anyhow, regardless of the above (probably easy to shoot down by someone who is actually qualified to discuss the various flavours of scientific advancements involved in the given statements), Einstein wasnt talking about Evolution, and I believe that he wasn't even talking about "God" as in the explicit Judeo-Christian version, but merely as shorthand for "whatever runs the universe", and thus as much the "secular forces of nature" as "Bearded-Guy-In-The-Sky". He's just saying that he can't believe that stuff like apparent FTL-communication between entangled particles[1] quantum foam[2] or Uncertainty itself[3], because Nature knows which side on a dice will end up facing upwards, with all facts available to iteself


Of course, in a Determinstic view of the universe, given the same starting conditions at the Big Bang (or whatever starting point you may consider to exist), it is therefore inevitable that We are the result (or the "current results" if you allow, as you should, that there's plenty of Future for further changes to occur in, never mind plenty of other 'here's to be considered) of the Natural processes of the universe.

As a bit of a Fatalist, I suppose I'd subscribe to that idea, but minor changes in start conditions or the allowance of quantum uncertainty (did a cosmic ray start or perhaps impede a chemical reaction in the primordial soup?) could well mean that we are here by chance, not inevitability, and I really can't disprove the philosophies behind those principles, much as I can't (and won't even try to) suggest that there is no Bearded-Guy-In-The-Sky who either set the Universe up in order to produce ourselves, or quantumly-nudged things to this end.

(I do, however, think that if He deliberately created an false Old Earth in a YEC-event, then despite the 'background truth' of this (maybe hypothetical) situation, we really can't be blamed for taking all the false Old Earth details at face value and as God's Truth (pun not entirely intended) and deciding that the evidence supports this, for that is what He presented to us.)

And all this leads back to Einstein, whose quote is often taken out of context by those seeking to add credulity and credibility to the unprovable (though not necessarily false) statement that there is a God by suggesting that Einstein himself believed in Him. Or am I wrong?


[1] i.e, the state of both particles is pre-determined, not a superposition, and measurement of one particle doesn't "force" it to become one state out of the many possible ones (and thus force the other to take on the appropriate partner state), just reveal what state it was in all along, albeit beneath the radar of the experimentors until that time (and the partner particle was thus also appropriately 'enstated' under similar conditions). The fact that in long-distant entanglement experiments, there appears to be a massive shortfall in the number of particle-pairs that can be assessed (out of all those generated) towards the end of supporting the theories of superposition suggest that there might be some other mechanism at work that biases the 'resolvable' pairs towards the ones that appear to support the relevant theories... But I digress.

[2] Why can quantum-foam not be determinant creation of 'virtual' partical pairs based upon predictabl (had we all the facts) interference of sub-Planck energy waves throughout the fabric of space-time..? As we can't detect such stuff, it of course might as well be random/spontaneous, even if it ultimately isn't...

[3] Again, Uncertainty is essentially down to how well we can narrow down information based upon the measurement constraints. Although I'm simplifying the principle here for the sake of being Very Probably Wrong were I to try to use the more accurate one that isn't the dumming-down version... ;)

How about being nailed to a cross and coming back to life 3 days later or however the bible likes to tell it.

Hmmm how about being in a coma?

How about being nailed to a cross and coming back to life 3 days later or however the bible likes to tell it.

everything is possible with God. Jesus is God

everything is possible with God. Jesus is God


Well if you consider God to be outside of time beyond the realms of the physical universe coming down in "human" form doesn't strike me as possible I would think.

How about being nailed to a cross and coming back to life 3 days later or however the bible likes to tell it.
Rubber nails.

Well if you consider God to be outside of time beyond the realms of the physical universe coming down in "human" form doesn't strike me as possible I would think.

part-human part-God

everything is possible with God. Jesus is God

I have a hard time buying that one, since it was an Emperor who decided, finally, that Jesus was God so he wouldn't have other upcoming mere "holy men" disrupting his great empire.
Jesus wanted us to reach for the same things he did. We've simply put barriers in the way to learning how.
"Ye of little faith..."

part-human part-God
All cop.

part-human part-God

actually, all human and all God. Both perfectly so.

At some point you have to have the faith to believe it. Jesus prefers that. Just ask Thomas.

This Comes After Pope John Paul II Defended The Theory Of Evolution
He actually did? I have more respect for him than I already have. It really sucks he died.

I have a hard time buying that one, since it was an Emperor who decided, finally, that Jesus was God so he wouldn't have other upcoming mere "holy men" disrupting his great empire.

The Reese's ad campaign of "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese's" was the foundation of moral relativism.

Hey, I can make patently false statements and try to pass them off as true, too!

The Reese's ad campaign of "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese's" was the foundation of moral relativism.

Hey, I can make patently false statements and try to pass them off as true, too!

In religious studies, we discussed the Council of Nicea, and how there were two schools of thought on Jesus. Was he just a holy man, or was he actually God?
1- if he was just a holy man, anyone could rise up and claim to be another holy man with the word of God. Thus, the Empire faces daily disruptions from holy men attempting to convert the people, and causing troubles.
2- if he was God, it's a helluva lot harder for people to claim "I'm God, too!" without proof. Of course, we still have people trying to make that claim occassionally, but they generally aren't well tollerated.

In religious studies, we discussed the Council of Nicea, and how there were two schools of thought on Jesus. Was he just a holy man, or was he actually God?
1- if he was just a holy man, anyone could rise up and claim to be another holy man with the word of God. Thus, the Empire faces daily disruptions from holy men attempting to convert the people, and causing troubles.
2- if he was God, it's a helluva lot harder for people to claim "I'm God, too!" without proof. Of course, we still have people trying to make that claim occassionally, but they generally aren't well tollerated. You do realise that Jesus' followers were going around saying he was God and being killed *by the Romans and their emperors* for it, way before Constantine decided to make it official? The decision to make it official was quite possibly a cynical politics game, but the idea and belief in his divinity existed long before that.

You do realise that Jesus' followers were going around saying he was God and being killed *by the Romans and their emperors* for it, way before Constantine decided to make it official? The decision to make it official was quite possibly a cynical politics game, but the idea and belief in his divinity existed long before that.

I have just one question, then: Is there a passage where Jesus says he's God?
Because I have a passage I alluded to earlier which shows he wanted us to become more than we were, and rise up to his level.
I don't care what we mere mortals believe. As far as I'm concerned, we're not about to change anyone's minds by debating this point which is so deeply ingrained in culture and belief.
If people want to believe that he is God, that's their choice. But I choose not to believe that, but I thank Jesus every day for everything he did. His ideals are so rarely lived out.

In religious studies, we discussed the Council of Nicea, and how there were two schools of thought on Jesus. Was he just a holy man, or was he actually God?
1- if he was just a holy man, anyone could rise up and claim to be another holy man with the word of God. Thus, the Empire faces daily disruptions from holy men attempting to convert the people, and causing troubles.
2- if he was God, it's a helluva lot harder for people to claim "I'm God, too!" without proof. Of course, we still have people trying to make that claim occassionally, but they generally aren't well tollerated.

I believe that the Council of Nicea was a council of the Church, not a council of the Roman Empire.

Little more food for thought: Even when asked if he was the King of the Jews, Jesus answered in a rather cryptic form: "Thou sayest."
He also claimed himself to be the "Son of man" (St. Matthew 18:11)
Matthew 16:16 - "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Lots of claims of him being the Son of God from the quick look I've taken, but nothing of him being God.
Granted, you can prove just about anything with the Bible... these are just a couple quotes of interest.

I believe that the Council of Nicea was a council of the Church, not a council of the Roman Empire.

It may have been. It may have been both. From what I've read, both sides were heavily involved in the talks of the times. It's hard to tell who had the most sway on the decision making, as I've seen people say that documents and such have been altered. As they say, history is written by those who win... it would be nice to have been there to see what happened for certain.

Little more food for thought: Even when asked if he was the King of the Jews, Jesus answered in a rather cryptic form: "Thou sayest."
He also claimed himself to be the "Son of man" (St. Matthew 18:11)
Matthew 16:16 - "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Lots of claims of him being the Son of God from the quick look I've taken, but nothing of him being God.
Granted, you can prove just about anything with the Bible... these are just a couple quotes of interest.

Right my only problem, not only can you just about prove anything with the bible. But even if it said it directly in bold letters it still wouldn't make it even remotly true.

adam and eve, Noahs ark, Jesus being son of god performing miricles, jesus coming back to life. All stories not to be taken literally right.

I have just one question, then: Is there a passage where Jesus says he's God?
Because I have a passage I alluded to earlier which shows he wanted us to become more than we were, and rise up to his level.
I don't care what we mere mortals believe. As far as I'm concerned, we're not about to change anyone's minds by debating this point which is so deeply ingrained in culture and belief.
If people want to believe that he is God, that's their choice. But I choose not to believe that, but I thank Jesus every day for everything he did. His ideals are so rarely lived out.

John 8:23-24
23
He said to them, "You belong to what is below, I belong to what is above. You belong to this world, but I do not belong to this world.
24
That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.

Right my only problem, not only can you just about prove anything with the bible. But even if it said it directly in bold letters it still wouldn't make it even remotly true.

adam and eve, Noahs ark, Jesus being son of god performing miricles, jesus coming back to life. All stories not to be taken literally right.

I tend to agree with that. The works are God inspired, not God written. Man wrote them.
While I agree that the more ... colourful stories told are to be taken with a grain of salt, I'm a little more leary about dismissing the stories of Jesus, since they were supposed to have been taken from historical writings and teachings, unlike such things as the creation of the world.

John 8:23-24
23
He said to them, "You belong to what is below, I belong to what is above. You belong to this world, but I do not belong to this world.
24
That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.

Interesting... there's the connection to the previous passage "I am what I am" there, but no direct "I am God." Even so, that's interesting.
Previous to that: John 8:16 - "for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me."
17 - "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true."
18 - "I am the one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."

There, previous to your quote, Jesus seems to be making a sharp line between himself and God, for the laws state that the testimony of two men is true, so he is saying that he and God are separate.

Really, this debate could go on all day with us throwing quotes at each other. :P Should you respond again, I think we'll leave the debate at that, and let people decide for themselves which they believe. I imagine the majority will side with you, since that is the traditional stance of the Church.
It was fun. :)

I tend to agree with that. The works are God inspired, not God written. Man wrote them.
While I agree that the more ... colourful stories told are to be taken with a grain of salt, I'm a little more leary about dismissing the stories of Jesus, since they were supposed to have been taken from historical writings and teachings, unlike such things as the creation of the world.

We already know the bibles been edited, but this was a time long before an idea like the earth is round was banned and books burned.

I just wonder concepts like Jesus just came back to life and cured blindness go unchallanged but much later theories of the earth being round completly rejected for a long time. You can't even trust todays government much and yet people put their undying faith in poorly educated people writing a good 2000 years ago we already know are unreliable.

Those bitching, whining, non-sensical fundamentalists have rome endorsed reasons to SHUT THE FUCK UP. It is a grand day for science to hear this. I have personally had about as much as i can take of people bitching about their beliefs being stepped on by the government and trying to take it hostage with claims of prejudice. If Rome will tell them they're all idiots, next the government will be able to, and hopefully one day we won't have to hear people like the religous right freaking out over a concert or because their kids are being taught scientifically validated information in a class based entirely on scientifically validated information. TAKE THAT YOU VILE OPRESSORS OF COMMON SENSE! :mp5:

Sexism! Radical feminist lesbian separatism! (sorry, it's from my politics book)
You don't seem to know much about feminism.. ;)

God does not do things randomly. he enacted laws. for example, for the law of gravity. it was originally thought God pushed things down with his own hands and made them fall back towards earth. this would not make him all-powerful.

"It is hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He would choose to play dice with the world...is something that I cannot believe for a single moment." Albert Einstein

he doesnt do stuff randomly

I seriously doubt god created gravity

everything is possible with God. Jesus is God

If Jesus was god, wouldn't that render him immortal, thus meaning he never actually died?

part-human part-God

He was a mutant?!:eek: :confused:

The Reese's ad campaign of "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese's" was the foundation of moral relativism.

Hey, I can make patently false statements and try to pass them off as true, too!

I think the emperor thing is more plausable

John 8:23-24
23
He said to them, "You belong to what is below, I belong to what is above. You belong to this world, but I do not belong to this world.
24
That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.

Surely sounds like an arrogant little bugger doesn't he?

I seriously doubt god created gravity

Gravity doesn't exist; the earth sucks.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

He was a mutant?!:eek: :confused:
...who doesn't believe in evolution.

...who doesn't believe in evolution.

*Ouch*:p

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_051118_ID_vatican.html

This Comes After Pope John Paul II Defended The Theory Of Evolution

here:



http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2005/11/vatican_endorse.htm


YEAH @ the Vatican and former Pope! Theistic Evolution is the way to go!

YEAH @ the Vatican and former Pope! Theistic Evolution is the way to go!

Is that something else then the scientific theory?

Is that something else then the scientific theory?

Yes - it makes additional assumptions on what (in this case: who) caused/guides it.

[QUOTE=Shqipes]The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design'' isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate raging in the United States.
He's right - ID isn't science. But theistic evolution isn't science either, so he's applying double-standards.

part-human part-God

Hercules?

Hercules?

If it's the one from New York then he's now gouvernor :p

Why do threads like this always degrade into pointless squabling between theists and non-theists. I mean its not like this is case where one sees a major diference between the theist position stated in the ot and that held by the non-theists, so why is it really necesary for non-theists to come in and start taking pot shots at the theists. I mean I can understand it if it was another theist anti-evoultion thread, but its a case where the theists are actually taking the non-theists side on an issue and yet you still have some non-theists that come in and act like jackasses. I mean, was it really necessary to start a discusion on the scientific plausibility of certain central aspects of the religon in questiones beliefs, when those beliefs have no bearing on the issue at hand. The same could be said about some of the "about time" comments that have been made, as if its so shooking that the Catholic church might be accepting of new scientific theories, seriously the case with Galileo was how many centuries ago:rolleyes: , Any way as was stated in the original post this isn't a new position for the Catholic church they've held it for sometime, I know this has been the church's position for as long as I attended Catholic schools at least.

[QUOTE=Shqipes]
He's right - ID isn't science. But theistic evolution isn't science either, so he's applying double-standards.
They aren't claiming it is science though, their position is that it is sciences job to explain the how th event happened, in this case the development of humans, and the religons place to explain the why. Meaning they are meaant to have completly seperate spheres of purpose and existance. Science dealing with the facts and the how, religon with faith and the why.

How about being nailed to a cross and coming back to life 3 days later or however the bible likes to tell it.

My money's on a stunt double.

They aren't claiming it is science though, their position is that it is sciences job to explain the how th event happened, in this case the development of humans, and the religons place to explain the why. Meaning they are meaant to have completly seperate spheres of purpose and existance. Science dealing with the facts and the how, religon with faith and the why.
The claims that God started or guided evolution, or gave a soul to our ancestors at some point in the evolutionary process, both of which the Catholic Church makes, are assertions about what happened and how, not simply about why, and therefore fall within the sphere of science.

If science had demonstrated that evolution was God-inspired, or that we had souls given us by God, then we could move into the realms of "why" he did so. But science hasn't demonstrated that, and, in fact, is tending to the opposite view, so discussions of why he did so are meaningless and jumping the gun.

God does not do things randomly. he enacted laws. for example, for the law of gravity. it was originally thought God pushed things down with his own hands and made them fall back towards earth. this would not make him all-powerful.

"It is hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He would choose to play dice with the world...is something that I cannot believe for a single moment." Albert Einstein

he doesnt do stuff randomly
Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen. - Stephen Hawking

While Einstein was brilliant, he started to say silly things like the "god does not play dice" thing in his later years. It's a shame when brilliant scientists stick to their preconceived ideas and start to deny evidence that refutes them. It's like when a good band starts to suck.

Why do threads like this always degrade into pointless squabling between theists and non-theists. I mean its not like this is case where one sees a major diference between the theist position stated in the ot and that held by the non-theists, so why is it really necesary for non-theists to come in and start taking pot shots at the theists.
Because the Catholic position, while far better than the creationist one, is still not entirely one which is justified by our scientific knowledge. In suggesting that there was some purpose and guidance behind evolution, it fundamentally undermines the understanding of some essential aspects of evolution.

When the Catholic Church advocates real science but then introduces non-scientific claims into the process, it is promoting bad science, which is potentially damaging.

I believe that the Council of Nicea was a council of the Church, not a council of the Roman Empire.

It was both. It was a Ecumenical Council of the Church called by, and presided over by, the Emperor Constantine, God's Vice-Gerent on Earth, and Equal of the Apostles (to use the possibly slightly anachronistic Byzantine phraseology).

Each of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (I'm using the Orthodox count - Catholics would consider these the _first_ seven councils as opposed to the only seven) was called by the Imperial government, whether late Roman or Byzantine.

Which is slightly off-topic, but thought I'd clear that one up.

Personally, I see no conflict between faith and evolution and am constantly exasperated by the way this debate seems to have polarised opinion in the United States between the weird heretical protestant fundamentalists who seem to have the President by the short and curlies on the one hand, and pro-evolutionists who not only reject faith (which would merely have me shrugging my shoulders), but are actively hostile to any religious perspective (which strikes me as rather intolerant).

As the Catholics have shown in the quotes that started this thread off, most people in the older mainstream churches find it easy enough to accept both God and evolution - but then, I suppose there's no excitement in supporting a calm, boring middle ground. Debate on this sort of issue only seems to encourage partisans of the opposing positions to shout loudly at each other and tell each other how wrong they are.

And my, that's really successful in changing minds, isn't it?

The claims that God started or guided evolution, or gave a soul to our ancestors at some point in the evolutionary process, both of which the Catholic Church makes, are assertions about what happened and how, not simply about why, and therefore fall within the sphere of science.

If science had demonstrated that evolution was God-inspired, or that we had souls given us by God, then we could move into the realms of "why" he did so. But science hasn't demonstrated that, and, in fact, is tending to the opposite view, so discussions of why he did so are meaningless and jumping the gun.
No, they are saying that they have FAITH that it happened that way, not that it is a scientific fact or any such case, as ID is trying to do. In other words they are not making a scientific claim that this is the way it happended, thye are saying that what ever the manner that science concludes on, the why behind that event/process taking place is God's will, as a matter of faith, in other words as a matter of belief with no requirment of facts backing it up, hence the faith bit. Its a philisophical/theological position not a scientific position and they make no attempt to pass it of as one, like ID. What they do do is attempt to keep others from passing the idea of as a scientific one hence the denunciation of ID.

In other words they basicly say leave science alone to determin the mechanics and physics of the process, we will theorize on the philosopical/theological meta-physics. No where in that position is there an atempt at a scientific claim, just a statment of their beliefs concerning percieved deeper/spiritual aspects of said claim.

*Looks at thread title.*

Makes sense, after all, the theory of ID basically says the idea of God is a myth and the religions of the world are just superstitutions. While evolution does not.

Because the Catholic position, while far better than the creationist one, is still not entirely one which is justified by our scientific knowledge. In suggesting that there was some purpose and guidance behind evolution, it fundamentally undermines the understanding of some essential aspects of evolution.

When the Catholic Church advocates real science but then introduces non-scientific claims into the process, it is promoting bad science, which is potentially damaging.
Which as I have already explained it doesn't need to be, because it isn't a scientific claim. It is a theological claim meant to be taken on faith, which they recognize as a completly seperate issue from factually driven science, hence their desire to leave the mechanical aspects to scientists, while only theorizing on the religous aspects. It seems basicly that you and some other atheist are basicly demanding that a theistic institute take a wholy atheistic stand, its not even merely a non-theistic position since that could cover all those un-decided such as my self who don't have an opinion one way or the other, and are additionally attempting to force them into making a scientific claim, which they aren't they are trying to put force their theistic position on the whole mater, namely that in this debate the science should be left to the scientists and the theological issues to the theologians. With the how being a matter of science and the why, if their is one which being a religous institute they assume there is, being one for theologians and philosopher.