I wasn't going to comment because I guess there wasn't anything to debate about, but then I saw the last comment.
anastasia writes:
It is more insulting that you would exploit my beliefs by asking me to trust the pope sort of a priori, when you know you wouldn't have done that if he didn't accept evolution.
If you think that was an insult, I apologize.
You see, I tend to keep track of what the "other side" is doing lately. For instance, whenever we have someone that make really rediculous arguments against evolution like using the laws of thermodynamics, instead of spending the energy to tell him the reasons why his arguments are bull, I take the shortcut and point out to him that even the top creationist organizations advice people against using such argument.
Same thing here. The pope, and indeed the bulk of the catholic church, have for many years examined the theory and weighed against their beliefs and such. This is a radically different approach to science since the time of Copernicus and Kepler. In other words, they have seen what would happen to them if they ignore the evidence and go on by doctrine only. They've become wiser. They have realized that evolution is such a big part of biological sciences today that without it virtually all of the modern biological sciences would make no sense at all. Now, whether they actually believe it or not I don't know. What I do know is if they don't accept evolution, the church will pretty soon be ridiculed for having such a backward view of reality.
The point is even among the rankings of the catholic church, there are a lot of smart and well educated people who have looked at this "issue" a lot longer than you have, and even they have to agree that they have no argument (valid ones anyway) against evolution.
You seem to be under the impression that the belief in evolution is one based on popularity. While I am not a biologist and thus have not observed biological evolution, I have observed "random mutations" coupled with "natural selection" directly that have resulted in wonders. I've solved many mathematical and physical systems using just random figures and selections of results. Anyone who knows anything about math, physics, and a little computer programming should be able to demonstrate how simple the concept really is.
Which brings me to my next point. You have repeated many times that you just can't see how something such as the eye could develop to benefit the organism. What I have been trying to say... I guess I've been beating around the bushes... is that you can't just understand these things until you have some rudimentary understanding of certain things in this world. For me, I've been trained in a field of science that have allowed me to grasp evolution and the mechanisms involve. This is why I keep recommending you learn more about the monte carlo method. You have to start somewhere. You can't just come out of no where and want people to tell you these things that would make sense to you. We don't know where to start!
But going back to the church, because they have looked into this matter for a long long time, they've realized that there isn't much real argument against evolution. If you haven't the will to learn the rudimentary stuff first, then perhaps you should just take the church's word for it?
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
™ Version 4.2
