The problem lies not with the school children but with some adults who believe in a literal translation of a myth who want to censor material in public school science books (or teach theological ideas in public school science classes) because it conflicts with that belief. What boggles me is how your view of this issue doesn't seem to even reflect the view of your own church?

Yes, evolution is taught in Catholic schools; it is, after all, a part of science and neither Catholic schools or the Catholic religion is opposed to science.  Some Catholic schools use the same science textbooks as public schools and that is where I saw the Darwinian evolution ape-to-human drawing. Every year of my children's education, after reviewing their books, I spoke to their teachers and asked how they taught evolution. 

That's where the difference comes in. Catholic education rightly teaches micro evolution (small changes within species) is true and rightly teaches that Darwinian and Cosmic Evolution is only scientific hypothesis and speculation, a basis for experiment and investigation. At the same time Catholic schools rightyl teach what both the Church and Scriptures recognize---the nobility in man as being made in the image and likeness of God. Man is a special creation, whose distinctive character centers primarily in his soul which is directly created by God. Catholic education also teaches the human species decsended from one pair,  Adam and Eve. 

Whereas public (government) education teaches Darwinian and Cosmic Evolution as dogma to the point it's become worldview. Atheistic Evolution science has become the defining discipline regarding man's nature, purpose and worth. It claims nature is the total and only explanation for the universe and all that's in it, including mankind. Humans are only more highly evolved animals.  

Evolution science is not atheistic. It does not teach people that God does not exist. It may contradict some peoples literal translation of Genesis, or contradict the dogma of other religions however it does not teach people that God does not exist.

God is in the realm of the supernatural. the Science of evolution deals with the realm of the natural. They are dealing with two separate and distinct realms.

I am not an atheist because I was taught evolution. Evolution to me has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. In regards to religion on the other hand evolution has taught me that various religions are based around myths and some of these myths should not be translated literally because science directly contradicts such translations.

If anything the study of evolution has taught me more about religion than the religion I once practiced. It has taught me too look at many religions and specifically many religious myths to see where they come from how I should translate them to see if there are any lessons to be learned that apply to the world as I see it today.

It is not my problem that others can't figure out how to teach their children their own religious beliefs. Maybe some should ask themselves why their own translation of Genesis (or whatever myth they base their opposition to evolution science is) contradicts science and question their own religious leaders why they were taught to believe such things before they do what they seem to do so well...blame it on everyone else.

Lula, how would you even know the difference between ‘the hand of god’ and ‘Nature’ … as the catalyst? Science doesn’t care about your god, any more than I do. OMT --- Atheists do not believe in god ... end of story. From this point on, I can sit on alternating thumbs waiting for some divine insight or some church to supply one ... or I can get off my duff and 'actually' try and figure out some things for myself, geeze  ... how novel is that one. I would hope you do not teach your theology in a science class though. You cannot even use the proper terminology so I would call your expertise into question at the least. You pretend you do not understand science when only a complete idiot could not. The naivety of your questions and statements reflects your simplistic belief that everything popped into existence fully formed – including man. There is also a bit of irony in what you said … obviously lost on you.

Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they believe they have god on their side and the other guy doesn’t.   [Blaise Pascal]

I know teaching both sides of the Origins debate will never do for committed secular and atheistic Evolutionists. As long as they can have it, the only biology, sociology, etc. that is allowed is fully and only materialistic speculation. Those who believe in Creation and the immaterial faculties of the mind and free will would be in serious jeopardy if they tried to offer those ideas in the government classroom or lecture hall.  

There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching both sides.  

You are right..the problem lies not with the school children but with some adults, who wittingly or unwittingly, believe and teach and masquerade the Darwinian and Cosmic Evolution hypothesis and speculation as established fact. 

Unwary school students believe everything they read or hear in the classroom as substantially true. And when Darwinian and Cosmic Evolution are presented as dogmatic fact of science, school students become victims of a dangerous hoax.

 Biology textbooks by Miller/Levine claim that we are descendents of ape-like "ancestors" who, as part of nature developed step by step from more primitive animals and lower forms of life. Darwinianism is presented as established fact of science which claims that over millions of years, plants, animals, and mankind evolved from a common ancestor and diversified into new species. 

If left only to Darwinian Evolution, students come to believe they came from a brute animal. Drawings like the one above have been used over and over as evidence to sell Darwinianism to students. All of them, the bat's wings, the horse "evolution", peppered moths, Haeckel's drawings, are blatant misrepresentations drawn not from evidence but from pure evolutionary faith. 

Natural systems degenerate from order to disorder called entrophy. Darwinian Evolution requires faith in the opposite. Darwinian Evolution has been pumped into man's conscience since the mid 1800's. One idea after another has been presented, yet, they have all FAILED TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE. 

The students need to be taught logical explanations of evolution from observable data that explains the big difference between "microevolution" (proven true science, evolution within a species) and unproven "macroevolution", evolution as a process of change from one species to another species. They should be told about the scientific evidence and very reliable findings that have overturned most Daarwinian claims. Darwin predicted that if his evolution theory were true, we should find intermediate fossils all over the earth. (eg. a fossil showing intermediate stages between an amphibian and a reptile.) Students need to be told that to date, modern science hasn't found one specimen.

Students need to be told that life cannot come from non-life. Man may resemble chimpanzees and our DNA code may be similiar but so what? Modern science has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the genetic barrier prevents change beyond the species. 

Instead of teaching science at its worst, we should be teaching science at its best. 

In "The Death of Evolution", Wallace Johnson writes, 
"Today, when the theory of evolution can be shown to be not credible, we hold the paradox of a new surge of evolutionary propaganda flooding the world through the mass media and our educational systems. It must be terribly important to some people to persuade men taht they are only animals and that science needs no God. If you are wondering why, the following will help to explain. Newman Watts, a London journalist, wrote a book entitled, "Britain without God". In his research  for that book, he discovered something. He discovered that those who would shoot Christianity to pieces are using bullets of evolution. This is his warning, clear and decisive:

"Every attack on the Christian Faith made today has, as its basis, the doctrine of evolution." 

BT, 

Nothing wrong with actually trying to figure out the answers of, "Where did the universe come from?" or "where did I come from?"  for yourself.

All that is good. Students ask these questions every day. 

The trouble began when Darwinian and Cosmic Evolution were accepted and taught as scientific fact when they are no such thing.

And now Evolution has gone from an unproven theory to becoming an ideology, a philosophy that allows only nature and natural cause to explain these questions.   

However teaching such a way in U.S. public schools is clearly unconstitutional.

No theory can be proven 100% correct , that’s just the nature of the beast … but they can be falsified … and since creationism and evolution are diametrically exclusive and since the overwhelming (real) evidence for evolution destroyed creationism over 150 years ago … you are pleading a ‘dead horse’ of a case that has been already decided. Just because you think you know or understand something, you look no further than your self-affirming religious sources. When I see a reference I almost always go and at least check it out … I don’t think you do. If you did, you could answer some of your own questions readily enough … you might actually believe yourself as opposed to not believing me. You either don’t have any use for facts, don’t care for facts or you are just afraid of facts … so you simply ignore them. Evolution has nothing at all to do with god … but that is all you want to discuss anyway. All evolution does is falsify a literal interpretation of the bible and makes no judgment on god either way … but I can see why that in itself just rubs you raw. This is not an option … there is no choice … believe what you want and continue teaching it to your children … but the truth is supposed to account for something … at least to atheists it does.

Yep ... clearly unconstitutional.

Evolution vs. Creationism: "Teach the Controversy"

Xenophobia

What exactly is this overwhelming real evidence for evolution?

I am not offended by someone who tells me they believe in god but I am offended by someone  who feels they are empowered to instruct me on the why’s, for’s and how to’s and to the exclusion of the real world and science without batting an eye.

Let's look at the first exhibit you quote which is only a part of Humani Generis # 36. 

In Humani Generis, the part about evolution begins with paragraph 35-38. To get the full context, these must be taken into consideration. 

35. It remains for us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are more or less connected with the truths of the Christian Faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather a question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

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 afar 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. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Paragraph 37 forbids Catholics to believe in polygenism and obliges Catholics to believe that Adam and Eve were the first parents of the whole human race and that they committed Original Sin and which through generation is passed down to all of us. 

When weighing and judging Evolution Theory, Pope Pius told us THAT: we may consider Evolution as praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts, and we certainly do that in the case of microevolution (small changes over time within the species). THAT we must consider that the human body evolved from lower beings not as something proved. THAT any part of Evolution theory that directly or indirectly opposes Scripture or Tradition (does not take the soul into account, that all human beings are biologically descended from Adam and Eve, first parents of the entire human race, Original Sin, etc.) can in no way be recognized or admitted.  

Yes my view is in complete accordance with the Church and so is Catholic education in complete accord with Humani Generis. 

-----------------

I remember this. The world's secular media had a field day claiming Bl. PJP II endorsed Darwinian evolution. His remark, taken out of context, established in some minds that the CC was ready to abandon her adherance to belief in God who created life, the universe and everything. 

Ya, so what? They were weighing and judging ET. 

Just before this Cardinal Schonborn, helped clarify the Church's understanding of human origins. He uniquivically established that the Church does not endorse Darwinian Evolution. He said, "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of chance are not science at all, but as Pope John Paul II put it, "an abdication of human intelligence."

Enter Father George V. Coyne.  

Father Coyne was weighing and judging ID theory. I happen to disagree with him because his position is one of wanting to have it both ways. 

It has nothing to do with abandoning the belief in God. It has to do with accepting that certain parts of mythology that is presented in the bible should not be taken literally. The problem is you divide everything into two-sides. Did it ever occur to you that the "Secular Media" is actually composed of mostly people who believe in God. Many are not only Christian but some are also Catholic.

Truth Cannot Contradict Truth. Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)    http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

I am trying to stay away from clips and such, but this one amply demonstrates why I don’t want to discuss things with people like Lula who deny everything simply because they feel they were instructed to do so … at least in their own minds.

Yes, thus the difference between Catholic and public schools and vive la difference!  

But the teaching debate concerns teaching both Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design which is not religion but science whose  proponents argue that because of their scientifically proven complexity, all plant, animal and human life was designed. That's it...ID gives no religious explanation whatsoever how or by whom. 

Darwinian Evolution proponents argue the materialist philosophy that at all plant, animal and human life was the product of purely undirected natural forces, namely, by random chance over eons of time and by what Darwin called natural selection and survival of the fittest.