Why should christians trust evolutionists?

[Christopher Fleming]

Hello,

I´m getting interested in this topic at the moment. Since all the threads on the "origins" sub-forum seem to have drifted away from the issue, or else are dead, I decided to start another one.

My reason for being interested in examining the claims of creationists, who up till recently I never would have taken seriously, is that I have come to distrust evolutionists. It is not so much a scientific problem, as a theological problem. I have witnessed darwinian evolution used as an argument in favour of all sorts of moral abominations; adultery, homosexuality, abortion, eugenics, euthenasia, etc. Looking at the history of philosophy, seeing where nazism and Planned Parenthood came from, it is clear to me that they owe much to the theory of evolution. Perhaps without it their organizations would never have got off the ground, because it gave them "scientific" credibility.

I do not want to become paranoid, thinking that everyone is trying to deceive us. However, for me as a catholic, conspiracy theory is a dogma of the faith. The original conspiracy is that of Satan, who has been plotting the ruin of souls and seducing the world since the beginning of mankind. So I see it as logical that he uses everything at his disposal. If evolution does the trick, why wouldn´t he want evolution in all the classrooms around the world, pushing belief in the Word of God into ever smaller circles?

I also observe that ALL atheists use evolution as an argument against christianity. Why is this? If it made no difference, why would atheists think it hurts christian belief to argue darwin´s theory? I have come to think that if you take God out of the creation equasion, you are left with nothing but random nothingness. This is exactly what atheists believe in; chance, but no intelligence.

Lately I have little trust in what is called the "scientific community". I am VERY sceptical about the GLobal Warming hype. I think it is all a huge lie, designed firstly to get money out of the taxpayer, and secondly to exert greater governmental control over nations, in preparation for a New World Order. Anyway, this is just to say that my scepticism towards scientists, no matter how well known or prestigious, allows me to entertain the possibility that evolution may be another big scam, put into circulation and perpetuated by the masons who rule in the shadow, in order to gradually erode belief in Jesus Christ. Before you all call me a conspiracy freak, please note that I am not asserting this categorically. I am simply saying that I consider it a POSSIBILITY. I have no way of proving it, and therefore cannot assert it.

Finally, although perhaps this will mean little to protestants, all the Fathers of the Church believed in a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Council of Trent teaches that we should never contradict the UNANIMOUS teaching of the Fathers on any subject pertaining to Revelation. St. Augustine had doubts about the exact meaning of the 6 days, but he certainly never implied that God used pre-existing material to make the Earth and the animals. The theory of evolution is totally foreign to all the Church Fathers, and thus is not an acceptable interpretation of Genesis for a catholic, as far as I understand.

I would appreciate any comments, as long as they are polite and intelligent. And please do not go down the catholic-bashing road. Go to another sub-forum for that! Thank you.

 

[Greg1234]

I also observe that ALL atheists use evolution as an argument against christianity. Why is this? If it made no difference, why would atheists think it hurts christian belief to argue darwin´s theory? I have come to think that if you take God out of the creation equasion, you are left with nothing but random nothingness. This is exactly what atheists believe in; chance, but no intelligence.

Dance and be merry. Earth, not bumblebees, created you.

 

[sfs]

I have witnessed darwinian evolution used as an argument in favour of all sorts of moral abominations; adultery, homosexuality, abortion, eugenics, euthenasia, etc.

Eugenics was justified by appeals to Darwinian evolution, but I can't recall ever seeing any of the others justified that way.

Looking at the history of philosophy, seeing where nazism and Planned Parenthood came from, it is clear to me that they owe much to the theory of evolution.

What works have you been reading about the history of philosophy? Academic studies, or polemical attacks on evolution? Naziism owed very little to evolution, and owed much more to some who were explicitly anti-Darwinian (e.g. Huston Chamberlain). The existence of Planned Parenthood might have depended in part on evolutionary arguments, via eugenics, but since I don't consider PP a moral abomination, that fact doesn't move me very much.

In any case, what does any of this have to do with whether evolution is true or not? Christianity has been used to justify slavery, genocide, imperialism, torture and theft on a massive scale. Does that mean Christianity is false?

Perhaps without it their organizations would never have got off the ground, because it gave them "scientific" credibility.

Planned Parenthood might never have gotten off the ground, but that would have made very little difference to the trend toward greater access to both abortion and contraception.

I do not want to become paranoid, thinking that everyone is trying to deceive us. However, for me as a catholic, conspiracy theory is a dogma of the faith. The original conspiracy is that of Satan, who has been plotting the ruin of souls and seducing the world since the beginning of mankind. So I see it as logical that he uses everything at his disposal. If evolution does the trick, why wouldn´t he want evolution in all the classrooms around the world, pushing belief in the Word of God into ever smaller circles?

Why wouldn't he use the Church as well? Should we toss that out too?

I also observe that ALL atheists use evolution as an argument against christianity.

Nonsense. I've known many atheists who don't use evolution in that way. For that matter, I've known many atheists who don't even argue against Christianity -- they just don't believe it.

If it made no difference, why would atheists think it hurts christian belief to argue darwin´s theory?

Because so many Christians (at least in the U.S.) vocally reject Darwinism.

I have come to think that if you take God out of the creation equasion, you are left with nothing but random nothingness. This is exactly what atheists believe in; chance, but no intelligence.

Evolution has nothing to do with taking God out of creation, and everything to do with accurately describing the physical world. You can accept evolution and believe in God and you can accept evolution and not believe.

Lately I have little trust in what is called the "scientific community". I am VERY sceptical about the GLobal Warming hype. I think it is all a huge lie, designed firstly to get money out of the taxpayer, and secondly to exert greater governmental control over nations, in preparation for a New World Order. Anyway, this is just to say that my scepticism towards scientists, no matter how well known or prestigious, allows me to entertain the possibility that evolution may be another big scam, put into circulation and perpetuated by the masons who rule in the shadow, in order to gradually erode belief in Jesus Christ.

Sorry, but entertaining one lunatic conspiracy theory does not actually provide any evidential support for a different lunatic conspiracy theory.

Before you all call me a conspiracy freak, please note that I am not asserting this categorically. I am simply saying that I consider it a POSSIBILITY. I have no way of proving it, and therefore cannot assert it.

Once you start to seriously entertain this kind of conspiracy theory, then you no longer have any grounds for believing anything, since any evidence you encounter could be produced by the vile conspirators. You simply lose all tethering of your beliefs to reality. Why do you believe the people who put forward these ideas -- are you sure they're not part of a conspiracy too? How do you know the Roman Catholic Church isn't a Satanic-inspired conspiracy? I'm not suggesting it is; I'm suggesting that if you reject any and all evidence, then you have no reason to believe anything about any subject.

On the other hand, if you are willing to deal with evidence, then both the conspiracy theories you've suggested are wildly implausible.

Finally, although perhaps this will mean little to protestants, all the Fathers of the Church believed in a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Council of Trent teaches that we should never contradict the UNANIMOUS teaching of the Fathers on any subject pertaining to Revelation. St. Augustine had doubts about the exact meaning of the 6 days, but he certainly never implied that God used pre-existing material to make the Earth and the animals. The theory of evolution is totally foreign to all the Church Fathers, and thus is not an acceptable interpretation of Genesis for a catholic, as far as I understand.

You should have explained this to the Pope and also to his predecessor. Both have made clear statements that evolution is an acceptable scientific theory worthy of consideration by Roman Catholics.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I also observe that ALL atheists use evolution as an argument against christianity. Why is this? If it made no difference, why would atheists think it hurts christian belief to argue darwin´s theory? I have come to think that if you take God out of the creation equasion, you are left with nothing but random nothingness. This is exactly what atheists believe in; chance, but no intelligence.

If your main objection to evolution is that it's used to justify atheism, material from theistic evolutionists might help.

 

[Christopher Fleming]

Dance and be merry. Earth, not bumblebees, created you.

What does this mean?

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution treats human as an animal. So whatever animals do, we are also justified to do. I don't think any evolutionist can argue against that.

 

[good brother]

As to the OP, I think you are spot on. For years I have thought the way you are expressing now. God bless you and stay strong in the faith. Don't allow yourself to be swayed with the "wisdom" of man. Stay focused on God.

In Christ, GB

 

[sfs]

Evolution treats human as an animal. So whatever animals do, we are also justified to do. I don't think any evolutionist can argue against that.

Newtonian gravity treats humans as masses. So whatever masses do, we are also justified to do. Sorry, but in neither case does the conclusion follow from the premise.

 

[good brother]

The existence of Planned Parenthood might have depended in part on evolutionary arguments, via eugenics, but since I don't consider PP a moral abomination, that fact doesn't move me very much.

Planned Parenthood might never have gotten off the ground, but that would have made very little difference to the trend toward greater access to both abortion and contraception.

Not to turn this thread into another thread about abortion, but how can you NOT see PP as anything BUT a moral abomination? Let's see, M Sanger started PP to keep black people from having so many babies and to bring the black population under control, how is that not morally reprehensible if we are all the same in Jesus Christ?

PP murders millions of babies of all colors, how is that not a moral abomination?

I don't get how PP could not be seen as anything other than disgusting.

P.S. I won't be answering a bunch of slams thrown my way for my dispising of PP so as to not derail the thread.

In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

Evolution treats human as an animal. So whatever animals do, we are also justified to do. I don't think any evolutionist can argue against that.

Newtonian gravity treats humans as masses. So whatever masses do, we are also justified to do. Sorry, but in neither case does the conclusion follow from the premise.

SFS, you know that Juvenissun got it absolutely right with what was said, that's the reason "we" (as a society) justify and allow homosexuality and promiscuity, and all sorts of other debased actions. I once heard a homosexuality sympathizer use the fact that homosexuality is okay because some PENGUINS are and some other creatures were!

Juve's statement works, yours does not make sense.

In Christ, GB

 

[Prayer Circle]

I don't think it's a matter of trusting evolutionists. I think it's a matter of giving respect to science. If someone accepts the light in their computer room turns on because of the science behind electricity. If they accept their computer runs, not because of angels inside, but because of Intel and electricity, then why is it contrary to one's faith to respect that the earth and all upon it have changed through the passage of million upon millions of years?


I don't see creationism being in conflict with evolution at all.
Rather I think it arrogant and even a bit of hubris to think, of all that has changed even in the course of human development, from the fossil record that gives us the remains of the earliest bipeds like Ardipithecus ramidus unto homo sapien sapien, that all that is because God, power of the universe infinitum, creator of all that is, was or shall be, must take time out of his busy schedule and wiggle a finger and make things change by his will here on earth.

Rather than imagine it possible that a creator, who is omniscient, would create something that could sustain itself and adapt as needed within the environment of his making, due to the wonder he implanted within it so as to survive across the eons.
That in so doing, evidence of his existence would be seen in the fossil record by those who are here now to see it and to realize in the research, how far they've come since the beginning.

If one first believes all things are of God, as I see it, evolution/change then, can not be anything but the machinations of God insuring all he created works as planned.

After all, if one accepts there is an intelligent designer, how then is the designs mechanism, that can be called evolution, is so easily dismissed? Especially when the fossil records stand as testament what was then, is not the same as now.

Life's too short to argue goddidit! Without holding respect for how that would be accomplished.

 

[Christopher Fleming]

Eugenics was justified by appeals to Darwinian evolution, but I can't recall ever seeing any of the others justified that way.

Thank you for your reply.

I was talking about what I have witnessed. For example, the other day I took my family to the zoo. The man giving the "educational talk" with the exotic birds gave a sermon on evolution, and included a defense of adultery, supposedly because "we are just sophisticated animals", and it is unnatural to be faithful to one person for all your life. This really annoyed me, and makes me think that evolution too often goes hand in hand with anti-christian propaganda.

What works have you been reading about the history of philosophy? Academic studies, or polemical attacks on evolution? Naziism owed very little to evolution, and owed much more to some who were explicitly anti-Darwinian (e.g. Huston Chamberlain).

The book about the philosophical ramifications of darwinism that influenced me most is "Architects of the Culture of Death" by de Marco and Wiker.

The existence of Planned Parenthood might have depended in part on evolutionary arguments, via eugenics, but since I don't consider PP a moral abomination, that fact doesn't move me very much.

If you do not consider PP to be a moral abomination, there is not much point discussing this matter with you. We obviously have little in common on a moral plain. PP is nazism alive today.

In any case, what does any of this have to do with whether evolution is true or not? Christianity has been used to justify slavery, genocide, imperialism, torture and theft on a massive scale. Does that mean Christianity is false?

You make a good point. The crux of the matter is whether evolution contradicts Scripture.

Evolution has nothing to do with taking God out of creation, and everything to do with accurately describing the physical world. You can accept evolution and believe in God and you can accept evolution and not believe.

The Church Fathers say otherwise. Their interpretation of Genesis is that God created everything at once, out of nothing. Evolutionary ideas had been around for a long time, ever since Epicureus, the materialist philosopher of the III century B.C. (I think).

Sorry, but entertaining one lunatic conspiracy theory does not actually provide any evidential support for a different lunatic conspiracy theory.

Once you start to seriously entertain this kind of conspiracy theory, then you no longer have any grounds for believing anything, since any evidence you encounter could be produced by the vile conspirators. You simply lose all tethering of your beliefs to reality. Why do you believe the people who put forward these ideas -- are you sure they're not part of a conspiracy too? How do you know the Roman Catholic Church isn't a Satanic-inspired conspiracy? I'm not suggesting it is; I'm suggesting that if you reject any and all evidence, then you have no reason to believe anything about any subject.

Do you really think that it is a "lunatic conspiracy theory" to claim that global warming is a sham? Have you ever considered the existence of powerful oligarquies, who manipulate the financial markets, pressure governments, and control the mass media? Ever wondered about freemasonry? Bilderberg? Conspiracy is plausible, you just have to discern between true conspiracy and fantasy. Like that film with Mel Gibson. Does anyone know the one I mean? He played a conspiracy theorist, who was suddenly under attack from powerful people trying to kill him. The only problem was that he didn´t know which of his crazy theories was the one that turned out to be true!

I am inclined to believe evidence that comes from sources I have reasons to trust, or at least no reason to distrust; not sources controled by big money and anti-christian lobbies. If you think that science is somehow above this, you are very wrong. There is big money in science, and guess who pulls the strings, when it comes to research funding? The number of scientists who have got the sack for daring to publish papers in favour of intelligent design shows there is a built-in prejudice against faith in the science establishment. How did that get there? That´s another matter; the fact is that it is there.

On the other hand, if you are willing to deal with evidence, then both the conspiracy theories you've suggested are wildly implausible.
You should have explained this to the Pope and also to his predecessor. Both have made clear statements that evolution is an acceptable scientific theory worthy of consideration by Roman Catholics.

If John Paul II and Benedict XVI wish to believe in evolution, that is their affair. I do not have to believe everything the Pope believes as a personal opinion. If they solemnly declare something as dogma, that is an entirely different matter. However, that almost never happens, especially not these days, when ambiguity is favoured over doctrinal clarity. Neither of these Popes have declared anything binding on catholics about evolution.

 

[good brother]

I don't think it's a matter of trusting evolutionists. I think it's a matter of giving respect to science. If someone accepts the light in their computer room turns on because of the science behind electricity. If they accept their computer runs, not because of angels inside, but because of Intel and electricity, then why is it contrary to one's faith to respect that the earth and all upon it have changed through the passage of million upon millions of years?

What about respecting the Word of God at what IT says? You want to talk about giving respect, let's give respect to the Bible in that it meant what it said and said what it meant concerning the works of creation. Why must we concede that the Bible is wrong in favor of accepting evolutionistic teachings on the matter? If we are willing to trust what the Bible says about where and how we spend eternity, why is it soooooo impossible to trust what it says about the beginning of everything?

... how then is the designs mechanism, that can be called evolution, is so easily dismissed? Especially when the fossil records stand as testament what was then, is not the same as now.

What about the Old and New Testaments which stand as testaments to how God moves? Why are "we" so quick to dismiss them?

In Christ, GB

 

[Papias]

Hi Chris, welcome to the forums!

You wrote:

If John Paul II and Benedict XVI wish to believe in evolution, that is their affair. .... Neither of these Popes have declared anything binding on catholics about evolution.

True. However, please do read what our Holy Father has written about evolution. He has written extensively about it, supports it, and doesn't see it as causing any of the things you are saying are caused by it.

Here is a large paper overseen by the Pope on this:
Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

From it:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Architects of the Culture of Death" by de Marco and Wiker

I checked it out on amazon.com. Looks like it contains a lot of the misleading and often outright false characterizations of evolution. I'm concerned that works like that can make all our points appear suspect, besmirching the Gosple message. You might want to compare it to this information:

An Index to Creationist Claims


Evolution has been built mainly by Christians early on, as a functional part of Christianity. Today it is accepted by practically all scientists, millions of whom are Christian. Our Holy Father accepts it, and shows that as Catholics we are called to celebrate God's creation, which God appears to have created using evolution.

Is any of that useful?

In his name-

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

I don't think it's a matter of trusting evolutionists. I think it's a matter of giving respect to science. If someone accepts the light in their computer room turns on because of the science behind electricity. If they accept their computer runs, not because of angels inside, but because of Intel and electricity,

Well you see, the scientific method was pioneered by theists. We can invent and use certain things and leave behind things like nuclear weapons.

then why is it contrary to one's faith to respect that the earth and all upon it have changed through the passage of million upon millions of years?

Yes created things do change. Just look at a car 60 years after production, or the different gears, seat positions, etc.

 

[sfs]

Not to turn this thread into another thread about abortion, but how can you NOT see PP as anything BUT a moral abomination? Let's see, M Sanger started PP to keep black people from having so many babies and to bring the black population under control, how is that not morally reprehensible if we are all the same in Jesus Christ?

I do consider eugenics immoral. Since PP does not currently advocate eugenics, I don't see how that's relevant. I go to conferences every year at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and don't consider them morally abhorrent, even though that lab was also heavily involved in eugenics.

PP murders millions of babies of all colors, how is that not a moral abomination?

Follow the rules, please: " Abortion may only be discussed in the Ethics & Morality forum, the Christian Philosophy and Ethics forum, and the Congregation and Recovery categories within the limits of the rules for those areas."

 

[sfs]

SFS, you know that Juvenissun got it absolutely right with what was said, that's the reason "we" (as a society) justify and allow homosexuality and promiscuity, and all sorts of other debased actions. I once heard a homosexuality sympathizer use the fact that homosexuality is okay because some PENGUINS are and some other creatures were!

A word of advice: don't tell me that I "know" something when I just denied that it's true. I think his statement was illogical and wrong. If you think otherwise, present an argument, not a string of assertions.

Juve's statement works, yours does not make sense.

Why? Why does his conclusion follow from his premise?

 

[good brother]

I do consider eugenics immoral. Since PP does not currently advocate eugenics, I don't see how that's relevant. I go to conferences every year at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and don't consider them morally abhorrent, even though that lab was also heavily involved in eugenics.

Why don't you go out and see if there are more PP's in white suburbia and backwood hick towns or if there are more in PP's in the inner cities, then tell me that PP isn't still in the business of eugenics.

Follow the rules, please: " Abortion may only be discussed in the Ethics & Morality forum, the Christian Philosophy and Ethics forum, and the Congregation and Recovery categories within the limits of the rules for those areas."

I am sorry to have stated such a well known fact about the murders of millions of unborn babies by PP in the wrong area of these forums.

A word of advice: don't tell me that I "know" something when I just denied that it's true. I think his statement was illogical and wrong. If you think otherwise, present an argument, not a string of assertions.

Why? Why does his conclusion follow from his premise?

I did give you an argument, about a few homosexual penguins being part of the basis as to why homosexuality in humans was okay. That homosexual sympathizer said that it's perfectly normal for humans to be homosexual, and that they knew that it was because there are other creatures in nature that choose it too. That is a direct supporting argument for what Juvenissun had originally said to you, you know, about evolution teaches us that we humans are nothing but animals and so we can act like animals too, remember?

In Christ, GB

 

[juvenissun]

Newtonian gravity treats humans as masses. So whatever masses do, we are also justified to do. Sorry, but in neither case does the conclusion follow from the premise.

Improper analogy.

 

[sfs]

I was talking about what I have witnessed. For example, the other day I took my family to the zoo. The man giving the "educational talk" with the exotic birds gave a sermon on evolution, and included a defense of adultery, supposedly because "we are just sophisticated animals", and it is unnatural to be faithful to one person for all your life. This really annoyed me, and makes me think that evolution too often goes hand in hand with anti-christian propaganda.

As I said, all I can do is report what I've run into, and I've seldom seen this argument -- specifically the evolutionary part of it. It's a terrible argument, in fact, both because nature provides examples of many kinds of mating systems, and because trying to derive moral values from descriptive science just doesn't work.

The book about the philosophical ramifications of darwinism that influenced me most is "Architects of the Culture of Death" by de Marco and Wiker.

I do suggest you read a wider range of scholars.

If you do not consider PP to be a moral abomination, there is not much point discussing this matter with you. We obviously have little in common on a moral plain. PP is nazism alive today.

Hmm. I'm morally opposed to murder, theft, adultery, premarital sex, slander, gossip, oppression, racism, hatred, bigotry, ignorance and injustice. If you can't find any common ground in that list, even though we disagree (probably) about contraception and because I lack your certainty that all abortion is murder, then yes, we have a problem.

You make a good point. The crux of the matter is whether evolution contradicts Scripture.

For me, the crux is whether it's true.

The Church Fathers say otherwise. Their interpretation of Genesis is that God created everything at once, out of nothing. Evolutionary ideas had been around for a long time, ever since Epicureus, the materialist philosopher of the III century B.C. (I think).

The church fathers interpreted scripture within their own culture, and were not in a position to address questions raised by science many centuries later. Where they saw conflict between scriptural accounts and what they knew or thought to be right, they were quite ready to interpret passages allegorically.

Do you really think that it is a "lunatic conspiracy theory" to claim that global warming is a sham?

I don't think it's a lunatic conspiracy theory to claim that warnings about global warming are wrong. As to conspiracies, however, . . .

Have you ever considered the existence of powerful oligarquies, who manipulate the financial markets, pressure governments, and control the mass media? Ever wondered about freemasonry? Bilderberg?

Yes, I think these are completely lunatic conspiracy theories -- disconnected from reality, nuts, whacko, yelling-at-people-who-aren't-there-on-the-subway lunacy. I know a great deal about how science operates (since I'm a scientist), and the idea of a vast conspiracy among scientists to promote any conclusion is ludicrous: that's just not how science works. Well-funded efforts by those with a financial stake (e.g. oil money in this case) to discredit science certainly does occur, and is well documented. (I also know people who have been high up in the financial world. Actual conspiracies in the that world happen all the time -- conspiracies to rig markets, to hide information, to trade on inside information, to evade taxes -- but they are much more mundane than the world domination ideas you have.)

I am inclined to believe evidence that comes from sources I have reasons to trust, or at least no reason to distrust; not sources controled by big money and anti-christian lobbies.

Look up how much money ExxonMobil has contributed to various groups to cast doubt on global warming. Why do you trust those conclusions? (Incidentally, where is the money supposed to be coming from to promote global warming? There are few financial interests favored by climate change, and no major ones that I can think of.)

Does this mean that you will take seriously all of the evidence for evolution put together by Christian scientists (both Protestant and Roman Catholic)?

If you think that science is somehow above this, you are very wrong. There is big money in science, and guess who pulls the strings, when it comes to research funding? The number of scientists who have got the sack for daring to publish papers in favour of intelligent design shows there is a built-in prejudice against faith in the science establishment. How did that get there? That´s another matter; the fact is that it is there.

Sorry, but I've been in science for thirty years and have a good idea how it works. Most of the claims of retribution against ID are overblown, and the idea that there is a lot of money behind evolution is just silly. There's lots of money doled out in research grants, but those making the decisions have nothing to gain from promoting evolution. You might note that by far the biggest source of biology funding in the U.S. is the NIH, which is currently headed by an outspoken Christian.

One thing you are right about is that there is a prejudice against faith in science, and in academia generally. There are a number of reasons for this prejudice, but one of the most important is the history of attacks by Christians on science. The opposition to ID from within science has little to do with this, however, since it comes from across the religious spectrum, and many of the strongest critics of ID are Christians.

If John Paul II and Benedict XVI wish to believe in evolution, that is their affair. I do not have to believe everything the Pope believes as a personal opinion. If they solemnly declare something as dogma, that is an entirely different matter. However, that almost never happens, especially not these days, when ambiguity is favoured over doctrinal clarity. Neither of these Popes have declared anything binding on catholics about evolution.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the Pope (or with evolution, for that matter). I just wanted to point out that yours is decidedly a minority view within the RC church, at least among theologians and the leadership.