Anglican Church to Darwin ...

... I'm sorry, so sorry.

As for the Catholic Church, they have no qualms with Darwin's work. As a matter of fact, Catholic Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican Minister of Culture states that creationism has no role in the classroom, except from a theological standpoint, and the Bible is not and should not be considered a scientific text.

The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution", a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

As Ravasi put it, creationism belongs to the "strictly theological sphere" and could not be used "ideologically in science".

Ouchie

MSNBC blog blogs about PZ Myers. One of the commentators (Paul Lurquin) rips PZ Myers a new one (on page two of the comments).

You mention that PZ Myers is a well known evolutionary biologist. This is incorrect. In fact, Myers has not published any peer-reviewed work in over 10 years. He teaches at the very small branch campus of the University of Minnesota-Morris, which offers no graduate degrees in biology.

However, Myers is well known for his constant ravings against religion. This is what his so-called science blog "Pharyngula" is mostly about. While I share Myers' views about science and religion, I have nothing but contempt for his ruthless self-promotion and the vulgarity of some of his comments (and even more so, those of his storm troopers).

Let us not forget that Myers was paid to appear in "Excell." In my view, Myers is not an active scientist and he does not represent science in any way shape or form.

He said it. Not me.

The false dichotomy of the atheists who have hijacked Darwin also appears in this blog entry.

"I personally feel that religion itself is a lie and a danger," he said. In his view, even those who hold to religious faith at the same time that they hold to evolutionary theory are being "wishy-washy" in one way or another.

One questioner asked Myers whether that meant Brown University biologist Ken Miller, who has often said his passionate defense of evolution doesn't conflict with his religious beliefs, was being a wishy-washy scientist?

"No," Myers answered wryly, "I think Ken Miller is a wishy-washy Catholic."

Translation: If you believe evolution, you cannot possibly remain truly religious.

What a total load of horse crap. It's obvious that this is what Dr. Myers wants to believe, but that doesn't make it true. The Catholic Church has no problem accepting evolution as true. It does object to talk about the evolution of the soul, and it holds very strongly that Adam and Eve were actual individuals (i.e., it objects to polygenism [which I'll go into at some other time, and which can I believe be put into a proper scientific framework]), but other than that what's the fuss?