Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on Pinterest Connect on Google Plus Connect on LinkedIn Connect on YouTube

What I Teach My Kids About Evolution

December 30, AD 2013 72 Comments

School Album 2012 Fall 036

People ask me what I teach my kids about evolution. The answer is, “I teach the science, but not the ideology.” The Evolutionists say, “You are failing your kids as an educator!” No, I’m teaching my children to keep a view of reality firmly in place, the very first thing a scientist ought to do. The Creationists say, “You are not instructing them in the faith!” Yes I am, but just like we don’t practice our faith only on Sundays, neither do we teach it only in religion class. Our first Kindergarten science lesson is titled, “God Made Everything.”

I forfeit the controversy over teaching evolution because the adults on the ends of the spectrum seem more committed to their views than concerned for children. The immense resources dedicated to this non-issue are perplexing, and I wonder if the controversy itself does more harm to education than good. Anger and antagonism are indications of insecurity. Those emotions distract resources from real solutions, which is another issue.

Our secular science books have beautiful chapters about fossils, dinosaurs, archaeologists, species endangerment, extinction, mitosis, meiosis, reproduction, ecosystems, classification, cross-breeding, genetics, and so on. Those are matters of exact science—physics, chemistry, and biology. That offspring differ from their parents, and as such, sometimes respond to environments differently can be observed and quantified. The change in populations over time can be measured, and is the basis of evolutionary science.

The controversy is not about science though. It is about ideology. Why would I teach my kids exactly how to scientifically interpret Genesis, when it is not known? Why would I teach them that the universe is a cosmic cycle and man a mere part of that machine, when modern science did not develop in any such materialistic or pantheistic cultural psychologies? Modern science emerged in a Christian culture, under a realistic mindset that rejected long-standing assumptions that contradicted the Christian Creed. Why instill a failed psychology in budding scientists?

It’s better to teach kids to make distinctions between what is known and what is not known, which is not easy even for adults, and to humbly admit where knowledge is lacking. That’s how you teach children to guard against blind attachments to prideful fictions. That’s how you teach them to search for truth—to use reason as far as it will go, but to see science as a gift from God that should be guided by faith.

Fundamentally, I teach my kids that there is no conflict between science and faith, for the claim of such conflict is a myth, and I don’t base their education on lies.

Hello, and thank you for reading. I am a wife, mother of seven, and joyful convert to Catholicism. I write from my office in a 100-year-old restored Adirondack mountain lodge. Read more about me here, with pictures. Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter. "Like" my Facebook page Science Was Born of Christianity to follow updates about my book. God bless you!

If you enjoyed this essay, subscribe below to receive all my essays by email.

Thank you for supporting me!

  • WHB

    Precisely, Stacy. Clearly made point and just what you emphasized in your book. As Fr. Jaki defined science, anything beyond the quantitative measurement of measurable objects in motion is into the area of reasoned discourse and speculation. Regrettably the zealous desire of Evolutionists to banish God from the universe plops them right into discourse, not science, and they have no choice but to make it up as they go along and fall back on an unfounded faith that whatever is not known must be true just because they think it up. Far from reasoned discourse in my view.

    At the other end the rabid Creationists have read into Genesis what they need to hammer the Evolutionists. I’ll bet this will cause some ripples out in the blogger pond!

    Happy New Year!

  • http://www.gadel.info/ GADEL

    These are powerful statements: “Modern science emerged in a Christian culture, under a realistic mindset that rejected long-standing assumptions that contradicted the Christian Creed. Why instill a failed psychology in budding scientists?”

    • WHB

      Read Stacy’s book, then you will understand. It was proven by Fr. Stanley Jaki many years ago but ignored by many. Get it at Amazon for Five bucks. “Science Was Born of Christianity”

  • Pingback: A True Story of an Angel's Visit - BigPulpit.com

  • Patricia

    “That’s how you teach children to guard against blind attachments to prideful fictions. That’s how you teach them to search for truth—to use reason as far as it will go, but to see science as a gift from God
    that should be guided by faith.”

    Amen to that! Merry Christmas to you & your family! Christ is born! Let us glorify Him!

    • Bill S

      “That’s how you teach children to guard against blind attachments to prideful fictions.”

      Assuming that, by “prideful fictions”, Stacy is referring to some or most of what is referred to as “Neo-Darwinism” (which I think she is), how much should a child be taught about random mutations and natural selection as opposed to the guiding hand of a “Creator”?

      “That’s how you teach them to search for truth..,”

      And what if this search for truth leads them to naturalism and materialism and not to “the way, the truth and the life”?

      “—to use reason as far as it will go, but to see science as a gift from God
      that should be guided by faith.”

      Why would scientific research have to be guided by faith? Faith in what? Faith in the scientific method? That might make sense. Faith that the Catholic Church, with its doctrines and dogma, has the final say? That wouldn’t work very well.

      • http://theyhavenowine.wordpress.com/ Bob Drury

        A few years ago, I became fascinated with the mathematics of random mutation and natural selection when I read the claim that evolution was based on ‘mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection’. I thought, “Random mutation a mechanism? Random mutation is the denial of any mechanism, in particular any scientifically determinable mechanism.” Later when I read “The God Delusion” I was pleased to see Dawkins’ view of the mathematics was the same as mine. Bill, is random mutation a mechanism?

        • Bill S

          “Mechanism” implies an intent. You use a mechanism to do what you want to do. A random mutation is a purposeless event. To call it a mechanism is misleading.

          I can’t buy all the randomness. I don’t see randomness at work. I see design and purpose. That’s why I am not a full-fledged atheist.

  • Pingback: MONDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | iwannabeasaint

  • VelikaBuna

    Dear Stacy,
    I am curious, do you believe species arose through the process of evolution, from one simple form into all the forms that are evidenced both in the fossil record and also presently living?

    I would just like to share one example of false logic based on correct data collection. (sorry that I don’t remember specifics because I read this many years ago in a Scientific American.)
    The researcher studied 100m sprint progression of the world records and compared men’s and women’s results. He collected all the data, and plotted it in a graph, and then he went on to conclude that women will overtake men in so many years, because women’s record increased much faster than men’s. I see the same problem with evolution, they are making the same mistake in logic.

    There is only one single question I have with evolution, and that is why there are no modern life forms commingled in the fossil record along with the extinct forms? There is one fish that was found in the fossil record and remains unchanged to this day, but this is the problem I have. I believe Dawkins pointed this out too, and he asked evolution deniers to provide a fossil of a rabbit then he would convert to their side.

    I believe that evolution does happen, but does not result in new species, but rather in deterioration of the existing species, producing many different expressions of the same species. Example of this would be human races, different dog breeds etc. Based on the available evidence I do not believe that natural selection could produce meaningful new body designs, and the main reason for this is because the life forms have too sort of a life span(there are other reasons too).

    Let me know what you think?

    • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

      Velika, sorry, I needed some time for that one.

      Do I believe species arose through the process of evolution? I don’t know. That’s why I wrote, “It’s better to teach kids to make distinctions between what is known and what is not known, which is not easy even for adults, and to humbly admit where knowledge is lacking.” No one knows. Some people really, really want it to be true. Some do not. I don’t think we have enough evidence either way. Scientifically, I struggle with the mechanism at the molecular level. Theologically, I struggle with reconciling man’s existence with all others, but there could have been a special creation. I also tend to think this question 1) cannot be known with certainty scientifically, and 2) isn’t critical theologically.

      I like your last paragraph, but I’ll have to think about it some more. To be honest, I find more and more that the history I’m concerned with most is human history, recorded history, not the fossil record or how we evolved. Probably a lame answer, but that’s what I focus on.

  • Bill S

    It is important to show how the concept of evolution is an explanation for how we got to where we are today in a way that puts the Bible in the appropriate perspective of a primitive story told by primitive people based on what they knew at the time. Had we known then what we know now, the Creation myth would have been understood as a myth and not an historical account as it is understood by fundamentalists. In fact, from what we now know, most of the Bible is just a collection of stories where any correspondence to the real truth is anecdotal at best. It could even be said that evolution is an entirely natural process not requiring any sort of divine intervention.

    • VelikaBuna

      Evolution is a poor attempt at explaining anything. It always starts with a miracle….the earth was lifeless and all of a sudden a primitive life showed up, and then it had a field day. Now that sounds like a mythical story to me. It is by far logically superior that life came from already preexisting life rather than from non life. How do you make life from dead raw material?

      • Bill S

        “How do you make life from dead raw material?”

        Good question. Do you want us to just say “God” and leave it at that? Or do you want scientists to try to come up with a natural explanation? Have we given them enough time and resources to do that?

        • VelikaBuna

          What does empirical science tell us?

          • Bill S

            So far, not that much. We’ve been able to form some amino acids which are required for life to exist, but that is it. Life began somewhere in the universe. It most likely began deep in the ocean, perhaps near a volcanic vent as a single cell capable of reproducing by splitting into two cells, then four, etc.

            We will find out some day.

          • VelikaBuna

            If you are sticking to the science, why do you conclude with the statement of faith? This is why I find talking to materialists so frustrating. They don’t seem to abide by any rules, it is like trying to contain the oil on the bottom of the ocean.

          • Bill S

            I have faith in scientists. I don’t have faith in God anymore. And I especially don’t have faith in the Catholic Church.

          • VelikaBuna

            No problem, I have a faith in God and His Catholic church. Nothing makes sense without God.

          • Bill S

            I used to feel the same way. And even now it is hard to see meaning and purpose in life without the idea of a Creator or intelligent designer who had a plan for all this.

          • VelikaBuna

            I used to be reverse, I used to put too much faith in human wisdom and knowledge.

          • Bill S

            To me, human wisdom and knowledge is everything. Life without purpose is not true? Life without purpose is not fulfilling, but it can be true. I think. You make your own purpose for your life, either intentionally or unintentionally (such as unplanned children, not that I would know).

          • WHB

            Nonsense. The MIller-Urey experiment has been completely refuted. They used a hydrogen rich atomsphere with ammonia present. And a cold trap to capture the products of the electric sparking. We know now that atmosphere never existed. And there were not temperatures that could trap such compounds. They would have incinerated had they even been formed.

            It was mostly Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen and water vapor. The result of doing the experiment in the most likely atmosphere is the production of formaldehyde and and hydrogen cyanide. You get embalming fluid and poison. If you studied any science which you seem to think is the be-all and end-all you would find you are dead wrong. (See Johnathon Wells, “Icons of Evolution”, Regnery 2000.) Wells is noslouch: an embryologist trained at Berkeley, a former atheist who felt betrayed by Darwin once he began to investigate all the so-called evidence for evolution.

            Also if you had any basic knowledge of probability and the theory of large numbers you might find out what the Penrose number is. It actually cries for a designer! It suggests the probability of our universe being created by chance. Your random hypothesis of life forming as you suggest is just not possible.

            I think it’s time to get some solid science education and apply it to the ‘theories of evolution’, which are nothing more than articles of faith, fairy tales.

          • Bill S

            I have no clear cut argument supporting NeoDarwinism as the sole explanation for life on this planet. I see the need for a supreme intelligence behind the appearance of design.

            If science is ever able to identify this intelligence, I doubt very much that it will be the Christian God. I think the latter will be shown to be a primitive attempt to identify this supreme intelligence.

          • WHB

            Why do you place your faith in nature and the god of Darwin and primeval ooze? What has materialism done to make you worship atoms and molecules?

            Who is responsible for that little voice in your head that keeps saying “Bill, you know this isn’t right” Why do you deny the truth that there is in your head, a set of moral premises and axioms? Don’t tell me the chemistry does it. I spent a good deal of my life studying chemistry, both theory and experimental and I never once had a test tube pop up with “Thou shalt not kill” or “The Truth shall set you free”

            If that’s what you want to do, go right ahead, but remember Stacy’s post some weeks ago “Would you Die for The Sun?” Now would you Bill? Or for any other earthly ‘god’? Maybe for a rock or a tree or a gram-mole of sodium bi-phosphate?? All perfectly reasonable where you are now. I don’t think you would.

            I am praying for you. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened to middle-aged men and it has to be scary late at night when you wake up and your mind keeps moaning, “Oh Bill, what does it all mean?” And your answer, “Oh my God, why have you forsaken me?” But he hasn’t. He loves you. You just let the secular bombardment around you eat away at your Faith. Say “NO”, Bill. It’s not too late.

          • Bill S

            What it means is what I make it mean to me. My sense of meaning and purpose is no longer based on any religion. I think they are all equally wrong.

          • WHB

            Two comments, this and one below it. Science can NEVER prove there is a God or there is not. You need to really do some basic learning. I recommend Anthony Rizzi, “The Science before Science” very strongly. Rizzi is a brilliant Quantum Physicist who has proven a theorem about quantum angular momentum that Einstein never could. He is a premier scientist/mathematician. The problem is that science in the flush of its material successes had tried to bridge a gap to the transcendental world that can’t be done. Learn, Bill, and you will see. Your comments so far are pretty thin soup for a ‘new atheist’ Something happened to you; personal tragedy, regrets about a life that is winding down in secular terms, etc. Don’t throw it all away now. Eternal life is there for the asking. Ask, Bill.

          • Bill S

            “Eternal life is there for the asking.”

            Errr. I don’t buy that. I know that my consciousness is directly linked to the operation of my brain and nothing else. When my brain ceases to work, I will cease to be conscious. The end.

          • WHB

            “I know that my consciousness is directly linked to the operation of my brain and nothing else.” Water is getting deeper Bill. You don’t know that. You believe that based on false, material concepts. You need to really understand the materialist trap you’ve fallen into or you won’t get out. No one can prove what you said in the quote. You desperately need to learn. I suggest E. Feser’s “Philosophy of the Mind” and even more basically “Atheism: The Last Superstition” You have picked up a lot of secular tripe along the way and it is imperiling your soul.

            Or, as some have suggested, are you just doing all this to get some attention? Are you depressed? I have been and know the symptoms and you are sure showing them. That can be dealt with and overcome. You must regain Faith because the simple chain: No Faith, No Hope, No Future seems to apply to you right now. You have given up on life because you have doubted your Faith. That hole cannot be filled with all the science mumbo-jumbo about the mind just being chemistry and electric impulses.

            Why believe such lies? Do you think No Science, No Hope, No Future? I sure hope not. Meanwhile I pray for your soul which surely exists.

          • Bill S

            I am depressed and I do like the attention. My depression is directly linked to what you would call losing my faith but what I call learning the truth.

          • WHB

            Well do something about it! You are certainly not terminally unique–it has happened to thousands before. You must get it through your head that depression is purely a controlling behavior so you can get others to do what you want, i. e., feel sorry for you, avoid doing something you don’t like, make yourself the center of attention, etc. That’s what you are doing here on this blog. You are offering nothing in the way of substance, your new-found belief is about 1mm thick and you resist any suggestion to go to work on it. You can walk away from depression as soon as you decide to do it. As simple as that. Yes, simple but not easy. You have to make the effort, no one else can do it.

            Frankly, Bill, I am a little disappointed in you. I think you are a very smart guy, too smart in fact and intellect led astray by false teaching and go-with-the-flow modernism can be fatal. So just stop it! Get on with your life and re-acquaint yourself with the God who loves totally, even the way you are right now. I would love to help but you aren’t willing to try anything to improve.

            Remember Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus! You are part of God’s Glory.

            What do you say? Your depression can’t control me, I am too far away. And I know the stuff inside and out, I have lived it, it almost killed me once. I went to work and fixed it and then found the Church. Alleluia!

          • Bill S

            “…intellect led astray by false teaching and go-with-the-flow modernism can be fatal.”

            I don’t believe that I have been led astray by either false teaching or modernism. Just because I don’t feel good about what I have learned, that doesn’t make it untrue.

          • anna lisa

            Come on Bill, just go help out at a homeless shelter or read to lonely people at an old folks home. You’re reminding me of two of my two bored teenagers
            Evolution is beautiful, just like God is my friend.

          • anna lisa

            sorry about the typos–I’m making pizza! :)

          • Bill S

            Hi Anna Lisa. Good to hear from you. You’re right. I should do something altruistic. It might make me feel better in this life, even if I don’t believe in the next one. Good point. Do you still blog on NCR?

          • anna lisa

            Hi Bill, Happy New Year :)
            I just make comments between brokering deals with children, and unruly young adults. I’ve moved my laptop to the kitchen so I can cook and clean while eavesdropping on interesting conversations online.–And yes, I’m really SICK of my bored teenagers. Thank goodness school starts up on Monday…

            And Bill, as for not believing in the next life (yeah, I know this could go round and round)–I just don’t think you can picture it. Haha–I remember thinking that I was going to die young because I just couldn’t picture myself as a thirty-year-old. So the jokes on me, because here I am at 47 ( I had to think about it) with more kids than I EVER could have wrapped my poor brain around. I’m not complaining really–I love my little monsters. (And I just yelled at three to GO OUTSIDE, one of which isn’t even mine, but is so at home here that she spends more time with us than her own parents…)

          • Bill S

            Do you follow Leila Miller on Little Catholic Bubble? Mothers like you, her, Stacy, Jennifer, etc. are living proof that your worldview works.

          • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

            Bill, you never cease to surprise me.

          • anna lisa

            Bill, I don’t have a world view. I’m just me, take it or leave it.
            I have a really conservative Dad. He gets all tied in a knot over what’s unjust in this world. Honestly–it’s not that I can’t commiserate over what he has to beat his breast over, it’s that between all the stuff I have to do, I can’t help remark about the *luxury* it is to complain about so much. (God Bless him and don’t get me wrong because he’s so good and a love.)

            I choose to celebrate what is good (on good days). All the rest? I leave it up to God. I’m fine with how He’s working it all out. Frankly, it’s hard to complain if you keep a crucifix in proximity. Maybe some day the *crucifix* will scandalize us more than anything we have to bellyache about.
            And really– I wasn’t trying to shame you about volunteering at an old folks’ home either. My youngest will be in kindergarten in the fall and I’m kind of afraid of the space it will leave in my life. If you do it, I promise I will too. We’ll make the world better, and won’t get creepy with too much time on our hands :).

          • Bill S

            Why do you take exception with me saying that your worldview works. It’s how you look at life. You might think that you don’t have time for a worldview but you are living it. I admire it. I just don’t share it. My worldview actually doesn’t work that well for me. It’s just the way I see the world. Volunteering might change it for the better.

          • anna lisa

            Okay Bill, I guess I’ve heard the term used in a derogatory way, too many times, but I think we’re on to something here. Mother Teresa said that the poverty of the west is loneliness. This loneliness leads to neurosis.

          • anna lisa

            –and thanks for the kind words Bill. I appreciate it.

          • Bill S

            Looks like loneliness is the least of your worries. Yeah. I don’t mean worldview in a derogatory sense. I am ok with Catholicism as a worldview except for some of the more controversial stands that it takes.

          • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

            Anna Lisa, I LIKE you! :-)

          • Bill S

            I have a problem because I see Catholicism as both a crock and a perfect way to live. I live as much of it as I can without believing most of it.

          • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

            Well, you’re probably more honest than a lot of people. I pray for you, ya know.

          • Bill S

            I just finished your book this afternoon. Its funny that I had read the free kindle books by Draper and White and was convinced that science made progress despite the Church, not because of it. You set me straight on that one. The book opened my eyes even more.

          • anna lisa

            Tracy, same–thanks! I really appreciate your beautiful balance. You have written so many things that show your humanity, and your willingness to let God take over where you needed Him to. All I have to do is look at your smile and the faces of your beautiful children to know how that world view is working out for you. God bless you good Mama, and thanks for not keeping it under a bushel basket :).

          • Bill S

            She’s awesome. Met her on Jennifer’s blog.

          • VelikaBuna

            I wouldn’t even go as far as accepting that they know the composition of the early atmosphere at all. Miller Urey was not even a good representation of what was supposed to take place, even if we assume the success, which I agree with you is probably wrong as most assumptions regarding evolution are. Making chemical bonds between amino acids in no way duplicates what takes place in the cells of the living organisms. The cells are highly specialized in reading very specific combinations of amino acid chains, in order to achieve this they have something akin to factories which specific machinery all working together in order to produce useful end goal. I do not see how making chemical bonds in amino acids and creating useless mambo jumbo, even remotely resembles that which takes place in the living cells?
            Here is an animated example of one out of thousands functions cells perform, and to claim that this happened through trial and error is in my opinion way beyond ignorant.

        • Therese

          As a science teacher in a Catholic high school, I have no difficulties. As I teach all the current evolutionary knowledge, I stress to my students that EVOLUTION IS ONE OF GOD’S POWERFUL TOOLS. And I continually point out that the smaller the object under discussion, the more complex it seems to get: cells –> molecules–> atoms –> biochemical interactions! High school students can clearly see the vast leap of logic required to assign random chance to everything.

          • Bill S

            Yes. I agree. Molecular machines, for example, defy Neo-Darwinism and randomness. I just see it as Nature at work. To me, it has nothing to do with the fictional deity described in the Bible, though.

          • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

            So you’re a pantheist?

          • Bill S

            I don’t really know what a pantheist believes. I believe what secular science tells me I should believe.

    • VelikaBuna

      Enjoy!

      • Bill S

        Yes. I’ve seen it. It replaces the Bible.

        • VelikaBuna

          Aha!! Right on.

          • Bill S

            So, we agree?

  • Simon Hill

    Thank you Stacy. We can always depend upon you to bring sense to topics which superficially appear incongruous with science and God in the same room.
    You have a special gift. Thank you for taking up the challenge.
    God bless you and your family .

  • VelikaBuna

    Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the
    bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I
    seek God! I seek God!”—As many of those who did not believe in God were
    standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked
    one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he
    afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?—Thus they yelled and
    laughed

    The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he
    cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his
    murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us
    the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we
    unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we
    moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward,
    sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not
    straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty
    space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do
    we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the
    noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of
    the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead.
    And we have killed him.

    “How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was
    holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death
    under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us
    to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we
    have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we
    ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a
    greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will
    belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”

    Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too,
    were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on
    the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too
    early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is
    still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men.
    Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time;
    deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still
    more distant from them than most distant stars—and yet they have done it
    themselves.

    It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into
    several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and
    called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What
    after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of
    God?”

    Friedrich Nietzsche

    • J. Frank Parnell

      Wow, you need a hobby.

  • S.M.

    Hello Stacy, may I ask upon what data do you base your statement that “The change in populations over time can be measured”?

    • http://stacytrasancos.com/ Stacy Trasancos

      My most intimately direct data source would be my seven children. None of them are genetically identical to the parents, so the population of the next generation of Trasancoses will be different from the current one, or the previous ones.

      • S.M.

        :) I get that completely! I have eight myself, and they run the gamut in personalities, that’s for sure.

        However, one thing I am certain of is that, regardless of the number of generations I project into the future, my descendants will all be human. In other words, while organisms have a built-in capacity for variation, there are limits to that variation. Would you agree, and if not, may I ask why?

  • John Brungardt

    Hello Dr. Trasancos—I just discovered your blog via Facebook friends’ links to this post. I wonder if you have run across the Biologos Forum, or Fr. Nicanor Austriaco’s work (e.g., http://biologos.org/blog/st-thomas-aquinas-and-the-fittingness-of-evolutionary-creation-part-1). Or for that matter, if you have run across other modern Thomistic work on natural philosophy/evolution. (e.g., part 3 of http://johnofstthomas.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/brungardt-omnia-in-sapientia-fecisti-creation-doolan-phil-730-spring-2011.pdf or http://www.charlesdekoninck.com—sorry for some self-promotion, but it is one of my research interests).

    I found your principles on teaching evolution classically sound and refreshing to read (especially “It’s better to teach kids to make distinctions between what is known and what is not known, which is not easy even for adults, and to humbly admit where knowledge is lacking. That’s how you teach children to guard against blind attachments to prideful fictions.”). It was a joy to read this little piece.

    • Andrew Seeley

      Ditto everything John said. I also love the website links on your About page — confident, faithful, humble Catholics engaging our contemporary world!

      I try to share the message of integrated, Catholic, reasonable engagement with schools through a couple of projects:

      catholicliberaleducation.org/

      http://www.catholicclassicalschools.org/

  • Pingback: This Week's Best in Catholic Apologetics | DavidLGray.INFO

  • Pingback: Pastoral Sharings: " Solemnity of the Epiphany " | St. John

  • Pingback: Why Not to Argue About Christ with Atheists - Stacy Trasancos : Stacy Trasancos

  • Pingback: Why Not to Argue About Christ with Atheists - Stacy Trasancos : Stacy Trasancos

  • Pingback: Would I Teach My Kids Intelligent Design? : Stacy Trasancos

  • john

    This blog is what happens when idiots get access to the internet.