[ 0 → 10] ♪♪ [ 10 → 20] ♪♪ [ 20 → 30] ♪♪ [ 30 → 40] ♪♪ [ 40 → 50] ♪♪ [ 50 → 60] ♪♪ [ 60 → 70] ♪♪ [ 70 → 80] ♪♪ [ 80 → 90] ♪♪ [ 90 → 100] ♪♪ [ 100 → 110] ♪♪ [ 110 → 120] ♪♪ [ 120 → 130] ♪♪ [ 130 → 140] ♪♪ [ 140 → 150] ♪♪ [ 150 → 160] ♪♪ [ 160 → 170] ♪♪ [ 170 → 179] The objective of the series episodes is to discover the authentic harmony of faith and reason about origins. [ 179 → 187] Foundations Restored is intended for adults and for young adults in high school, college, or seminary. [ 187 → 190] The series is written from a Catholic perspective, [ 190 → 197] but other Christians and non-believers will also find it extremely informative. [ 197 → 202] We approach this series with the intent of educating and creating dialogue, [ 202 → 207] and we realize that many truth-seeking Catholics accept evolutionary claims [ 207 → 214] because they have been taught that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for cosmic and biological evolution. [ 214 → 219] So if you are currently a theistic evolutionist who is open to the truth about origins, [ 219 → 224] you are among the most important of those in our target audience. [ 224 → 229] We also realize that Catholic instructors who teach evolutionists true [ 229 → 233] are in nearly all cases not intentionally deceiving their students, [ 233 → 236] but are also victims of misinformation, [ 236 → 242] and will benefit from an objective evaluation of evolutionary claims. [ 242 → 248] Our approach is to say, no matter what your current beliefs about origins and evolution may be, [ 248 → 251] join us in a quest for truth. [ 251 → 260] Let us explain why Darwinian claims fail from the perspective of natural science, theology, philosophy, and history. [ 260 → 269] Let us explain why the evidence points to special creation as the best explanation of cosmic and biological origins, [ 269 → 274] and let us explain why the restoration of truth about origins is foundational [ 274 → 282] to turning the tide in the war of worldviews that continues to claim an untold number of casualties. [ 282 → 286] As a molecular biologist formerly involved in mapping genomes, [ 286 → 288] and now as a biology teacher in a Catholic high school, [ 288 → 295] I've seen a host of misunderstandings about origins arise from the teaching of false information in the biology classroom. [ 295 → 300] I'm blessed to participate in this series, which can be used to counter false claims found in nearly all biology textbooks, [ 300 → 305] and help students and adult study groups come to an accurate understanding of the natural world. [ 305 → 310] I believe that the teacher's guide will be an extremely useful aid for Catholic school teachers and homeschoolers, [ 310 → 315] who may want to incorporate the series into their curriculum and assign more in-depth research projects to their students. [ 315 → 319] In fact, as explained further in the teacher's guide and at the end of this episode, [ 319 → 324] the entire series is structured to be a semester or year-long worldview course. [ 324 → 329] As a physicist who eventually followed a calling into the priesthood, [ 329 → 335] I have extensively studied the harmony of faith and science in the tradition of the great scholastics, [ 335 → 338] and Thomistic philosophy in particular. [ 338 → 344] I have always found it incredible that so many Catholic instructors and apologists [ 344 → 350] freely quote St. Thomas and the Summa Theologica on the smallest of details, [ 350 → 355] yet all but ignore his extensive writings about special creation. [ 355 → 362] This is largely due to the false belief that evolutionary claims somehow force the Church [ 362 → 368] to recast the understanding of origins that St. Thomas so clearly expresses. [ 368 → 374] Tragically, this false view is taught in many Catholic schools and seminaries, [ 374 → 377] and even accepted by many religious orders. [ 377 → 384] It is my prayer that this DVD series will spark an awakening in Catholic circles, [ 384 → 391] and will be widely used in seminaries, Catholic schools, and by homeschool families. [ 391 → 393] There is no other series like it. [ 402 → 405] To begin addressing the opening questions, [ 405 → 410] let us discuss whether origins is important and worth studying. [ 410 → 413] In the encyclical Fides et Ratio, [ 413 → 418] Pope St. John Paul II strongly affirmed the importance of origins, [ 418 → 422] writing that the fundamental questions of human life include [ 422 → 427] Who am I? Where have I come from? And where am I going? [ 427 → 429] Such questions, he explained, [ 429 → 432] have their common source in the quest for meaning. [ 432 → 438] The answer given decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives. [ 438 → 442] Similarly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, [ 469 → 471] And where is it going? [ 471 → 477] The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. [ 477 → 483] They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions. [ 483 → 487] Going still further, St. Thomas Aquinas clearly understood [ 487 → 493] that our view of creation greatly impacts our view of God when he wrote, [ 498 → 501] It does not matter what a man thinks about the creation [ 501 → 505] so long as he has the correct opinion concerning God. [ 505 → 510] An error concerning the creation ends as false thinking about God. [ 512 → 516] And so, our view of origins is clearly important. [ 516 → 518] But wait, some may say, [ 518 → 523] why would this importance lead to questioning biological and cosmic evolution? [ 524 → 529] Hasn't the Church said that evolution theory is compatible with Catholic doctrine? [ 529 → 532] Hugh Owen of the Colby Center for the Study of Creation [ 532 → 536] explains how to find the answer to this important question. [ 536 → 540] When we seek to understand Church teachings on any issue, [ 540 → 546] it is very important to look at the level of authority associated with the various statements issued. [ 546 → 551] For example, a bishop's casual remark about evolution during an interview [ 551 → 555] may be a personal opinion influenced by false evolutionary claims [ 555 → 559] and should not necessarily be understood to reflect Church doctrine. [ 559 → 561] So we must be careful. [ 561 → 564] Concerning Church teachings on origins, [ 564 → 569] multiple magisterial statements of very high authority will be discussed in this series. [ 569 → 572] Specifically concerning evolution, [ 572 → 575] the statement with the highest level of authority [ 575 → 579] is Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, [ 579 → 584] which in no way abrogated any of the prior authoritative teachings on creation [ 584 → 587] that we will examine in this series. [ 589 → 595] Interestingly, many Catholics claiming that the Church has somehow approved of evolution [ 595 → 600] cite the first sentence of paragraph 36 of Humani Generis for support. [ 600 → 602] This sentence states, [ 602 → 605] The teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, [ 605 → 609] in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, [ 609 → 614] research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, [ 614 → 617] take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, [ 617 → 621] in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body [ 621 → 624] as coming from preexistent and living matter. [ 624 → 627] For the Catholic faith obliges us to hold [ 627 → 631] that souls are immediately created by God. [ 632 → 634] Several comments are in order. [ 634 → 638] First, it is absolutely critical to view this sentence [ 638 → 643] in the context of the remainder of paragraph 36, which states, [ 643 → 647] However, this must be done in such a way [ 647 → 649] that the reasons for both opinions, [ 649 → 653] that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, [ 653 → 658] be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure, [ 658 → 662] and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, [ 662 → 664] to whom Christ has given the mission [ 664 → 667] of interpreting authentically the sacred scriptures [ 667 → 670] and of defending the dogmas of faith. [ 671 → 675] Some, however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion [ 675 → 677] when they act as if the origin of the human body [ 677 → 679] from preexisting and living matter [ 679 → 682] were already completely certain and proved [ 682 → 685] by the facts which have been discovered up to now, [ 685 → 687] and by reasoning on those facts, [ 687 → 690] and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation [ 690 → 695] which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. [ 699 → 700] In the first sentence, [ 700 → 703] the Church is opening a period of discussion [ 703 → 706] among theologians and natural scientists [ 706 → 708] to evaluate the evidence and determine [ 708 → 712] whether evolution could be reconciled with Church doctrine. [ 712 → 716] But just because a period of discussion has been opened, [ 716 → 718] it is not at all certain [ 718 → 721] that evolution will be determined to be compatible [ 721 → 724] with God's revelation about origins. [ 724 → 728] An important parallel occurred with the issue of contraception. [ 728 → 733] In March 1963, Pope St. John XXIII formed a committee [ 733 → 735] to study whether the use of contraception [ 735 → 738] could be compatible with Catholic teaching. [ 738 → 741] Upon hearing this, many Catholics assumed [ 741 → 744] that approval of contraception was inevitable, [ 744 → 746] and many clergy even began proclaiming [ 746 → 748] that contraception was permissible. [ 748 → 751] When the Church finally announced in Humanae Vitae [ 751 → 754] that contraception was not compatible [ 754 → 756] with the constant teaching of the Church, [ 756 → 759] needless dissension erupted. [ 759 → 762] Moreover, it is very important to understand [ 762 → 766] the boundaries of dialogue established in paragraph 36. [ 766 → 768] Father Thomas Hickey, [ 768 → 771] a parish priest and former assistant professor [ 771 → 774] at Holy Apostles Seminary, explains. [ 775 → 778] Paragraph 36 of Humanae Generis [ 778 → 780] establishes very clear boundaries [ 780 → 783] of the discussion about evolutionary theory. [ 783 → 786] This paragraph mandates that evidence [ 786 → 791] both for and against evolution theory must be studied. [ 791 → 794] It also states that evolution is not to be treated [ 794 → 797] as certain or proven. [ 797 → 800] All are to submit to the final decision of the Church [ 800 → 803] and to assume that evolution is proven [ 803 → 805] or that divine revelation is not involved [ 805 → 809] is to go beyond the permitted limits of discussion. [ 809 → 812] Humanae Generis also establishes [ 812 → 815] that the first 11 chapters of Genesis [ 815 → 818] do pertain to true history. [ 818 → 820] The chapters are inspired, [ 820 → 822] and the view of limited inerrancy [ 822 → 825] has been repeatedly condemned. [ 825 → 829] It is fictitious to think that all difficulties vanish [ 829 → 831] if the literal sense is replaced [ 831 → 833] by the symbolic or spiritual sense. [ 833 → 835] It also establishes that we must believe [ 835 → 837] that Adam was a real person [ 837 → 840] and the father of all humans. [ 840 → 843] It further warns of those who try to withdraw [ 843 → 845] from the Church's teaching authority [ 845 → 847] out of desire for novelty [ 847 → 849] or the fear of being considered ignorant [ 849 → 852] of the recent scientific findings. [ 852 → 855] It instructs bishops and religious orders [ 855 → 858] not to advance opinions contrary to the encyclical [ 858 → 862] in schools or to the clergy and the faithful. [ 862 → 866] It further states that teachers in Catholic institutions [ 866 → 869] cannot with tranquil conscience [ 869 → 871] exercise the office of teaching [ 871 → 873] unless they religiously accept [ 873 → 878] and exactly observe the norms ordained. [ 878 → 881] Clearly then, the most authoritative statement [ 881 → 884] ever made by the Catholic Church on evolution [ 884 → 886] was extremely cautious [ 886 → 889] and certainly did not endorse the concept. [ 889 → 893] Unfortunately, few Catholics have actually read Humani Generis [ 893 → 896] and even fewer follow its mandates. [ 896 → 898] As a result, there is confusion [ 898 → 901] when some Catholics question evolution. [ 901 → 904] But actually, these Catholics are among the few in the world [ 904 → 907] being obedient to the Magisterium. [ 907 → 910] This explains why many priests, lay Catholics [ 910 → 912] and even non-Catholic scientists [ 912 → 915] have enthusiastically supported this project. [ 943 → 946] I do believe it's the loving thing to do [ 946 → 948] is to tell people the truth [ 948 → 950] and encourage them in it. [ 950 → 955] And so I know this will benefit many people as well. [ 955 → 957] I'm glad to be part of it. [ 957 → 959] As a Catholic parent [ 959 → 962] who has studied the failure of Darwinism, [ 962 → 964] I was shocked when I learned [ 964 → 966] that my son's Catholic high school biology instructor [ 966 → 968] spent an entire month [ 968 → 971] teaching human evolution as scientific fact. [ 971 → 973] After that, mocked doubtful students [ 973 → 975] and even introduced to them [ 975 → 978] the evolutionary pantheism of Teilhard de Chardin. [ 978 → 980] Then I subsequently learned [ 980 → 982] that the religious instructor taught [ 982 → 984] that the Genesis account of creation was a story [ 984 → 987] and not to be taken literally. [ 987 → 989] So if you are a frustrated Catholic parent [ 989 → 992] who has had similar experiences, [ 992 → 994] or if you are a homeschooling parent, [ 994 → 997] this series will be a great blessing. [ 997 → 999] I encourage you to not only use this [ 999 → 1001] as a supplement to your child's theological [1001 → 1003] and biology instruction, [1003 → 1005] but to also give this series as a gift [1005 → 1008] to Catholic instructors and clergy [1008 → 1010] who may not know that evolutionary claims [1010 → 1012] fail from a scientific, theological, [1012 → 1015] and philosophical perspective. [1015 → 1017] For much of my life, [1017 → 1019] I was a dissatisfied humanist [1019 → 1021] seeking a consistent worldview. [1021 → 1023] But I was so convinced that evolution [1023 → 1025] and higher critical methods had proven Genesis [1025 → 1028] to be a myth that I rejected Christianity. [1028 → 1030] Coming to understanding that it is evolution [1030 → 1033] and not Genesis that is the myth changed everything. [1033 → 1035] Through God's grace and the influence [1035 → 1037] of Restoring Truth Ministries and the Colby Center, [1037 → 1039] I found the truth I was seeking [1039 → 1042] and was accepted into the Catholic Church in 2006. [1042 → 1045] If you are Catholic, realize that for an atheist, [1045 → 1048] it matters greatly if evolution is true or false. [1048 → 1051] My entire worldview depended on Darwinism [1051 → 1053] for its intellectual basis. [1053 → 1056] If Christians continue to sit on the sidelines [1056 → 1058] while the nation's children are taught evolutionary claims [1058 → 1060] laced with false philosophy, [1060 → 1062] we should not be surprised [1062 → 1064] as the spiritual casualties continue to mount [1064 → 1067] and many Catholic youth leave the Church. [1067 → 1070] As an engineer and a former Protestant [1070 → 1072] who understood the failure of Darwinism, [1072 → 1076] my conversion to Catholicism was nearly derailed [1076 → 1079] when I realized that most Catholics [1079 → 1081] eagerly embrace evolution. [1081 → 1083] My problem was accepting that the Church [1083 → 1085] possessed the fullness of truth [1085 → 1088] and the correct understanding of Sacred Scripture [1088 → 1091] when by the millions, Catholics have been misled [1091 → 1093] by evolutionary fables [1093 → 1097] that were devised to destroy the truth about creation. [1097 → 1099] Fortunately, I found the Colby Center [1099 → 1101] and other dedicated Catholics [1101 → 1105] who understood the failure and harm of Darwinism. [1105 → 1108] I believe that due to the rich history [1108 → 1110] of Church teaching on origins, [1110 → 1113] including the Church Fathers' confrontation [1113 → 1115] of evolutionary errors, [1115 → 1118] Catholics should be leading the fight [1118 → 1120] to restore the truth about origins. [1120 → 1122] As you watch this series, [1122 → 1124] I encourage you to ponder the role [1124 → 1128] God would have you play in this important task. [1128 → 1130] I was blessed to attend [1130 → 1133] a week-long Colby Center conference a few years ago, [1133 → 1136] and I'm pleased to see the basic contents [1136 → 1138] put into a DVD series. [1138 → 1141] For those who think that the issue of origins [1141 → 1144] has been settled in favor of Darwinism, [1144 → 1147] or who think that the issue is not relevant [1147 → 1149] to the loss of faith in society, [1149 → 1151] even within the Catholic Church, [1151 → 1153] your eyes will be opened [1153 → 1156] if you approach this series with an open mind. [1156 → 1158] There is a deep content here, [1158 → 1161] and viewers will benefit from watching the episode [1161 → 1162] more than once. [1162 → 1165] At last, there is a Catholic video series [1165 → 1169] that is obedient to the mandates of Pope Pius XII [1169 → 1173] to look at the evidence both for and against evolution, [1173 → 1177] and not to treat it as a certain proven fact. [1183 → 1186] As we introduce the subject of origins, [1186 → 1188] it is important to realize [1188 → 1190] that every viewer comes to the topic [1190 → 1194] with certain background beliefs or presuppositions. [1195 → 1199] Some of the most common presuppositions include [1199 → 1203] 1. Scientists who tell us that evolution is beyond questioning [1203 → 1206] do not let their philosophical views interfere [1206 → 1210] with the objective presentation of the evidence for evolution. [1210 → 1213] In other words, scientists don't lie. [1213 → 1218] 2. My biology textbook presented the truth about origins [1218 → 1220] in the public educational establishment [1220 → 1223] has no motives for deceiving children. [1224 → 1228] 3. Origins is properly a matter for natural science [1228 → 1230] and is supported by the evidence [1230 → 1233] while the Bible either doesn't make scientific claims [1233 → 1237] or else it contains errors in history and natural science. [1237 → 1240] To avoid conflict between faith and science, [1240 → 1242] we must view the creation narrative [1242 → 1245] only in the spiritual sense or as an allegory. [1245 → 1248] It is not an account of what actually occurred [1248 → 1252] regarding the origin of the cosmos and of all species. [1253 → 1257] 4. Neither Catholics nor other Christians [1257 → 1260] face difficulties in accepting evolution [1260 → 1263] as long as it is understood to be God-directed [1263 → 1265] or theistic evolution. [1265 → 1268] After all, truth cannot contradict truth [1268 → 1271] and theistic evolution is the only reasonable way [1271 → 1274] to reconcile the truths of faith and science. [1276 → 1278] In the following episodes, [1278 → 1280] much evidence is introduced to show [1280 → 1284] that each of these widely held presuppositions is false. [1284 → 1288] As a start, we now discuss the first presupposition [1288 → 1291] and demonstrate that the most prominent evolutionists [1291 → 1293] from Charles Darwin to Stephen Hawking [1293 → 1297] have been committed materialists, agnostics, rationalists [1297 → 1299] and philosophical naturalists, [1299 → 1302] meaning that they believe that only matter exists [1302 → 1305] or at least question the existence of God, [1305 → 1307] especially one who intervenes in the world [1307 → 1309] after the initial creation. [1309 → 1312] Many of these individuals also expressed hatred [1312 → 1316] toward the church and the notion of a caring, loving God. [1317 → 1320] As we quote these leading evolutionists, [1320 → 1322] ask yourself these questions. [1323 → 1326] Given the individual's philosophical position [1326 → 1329] and even his expressed hatred of Christianity, [1329 → 1331] would he likely have been objective [1331 → 1333] about the evidence for evolution [1333 → 1337] since special creation is the only real alternative? [1338 → 1341] Is it possible that the individual misrepresented [1341 → 1343] the evidence for evolution [1343 → 1347] to support his worldview or hatred of Christianity? [1349 → 1352] If the individual's evolutionary claims could be deceptive, [1352 → 1354] would it not be logical to evaluate [1354 → 1357] the scientific evidence about the claim [1357 → 1359] directly and critically? [1361 → 1363] Note that by posing these questions, [1363 → 1366] we are not saying that evolutionary claims [1366 → 1368] should be rejected simply because [1368 → 1372] most leading evolutionists have been non-believers. [1372 → 1374] Rather, we are asking if it is possible [1374 → 1377] that for philosophical or professional reasons [1377 → 1381] the evidence for evolution has been deceptively portrayed [1381 → 1383] and whether it is appropriate to directly [1383 → 1385] and critically study the claims [1385 → 1388] using the scientific literature. [1391 → 1395] We begin by quoting Charles Darwin who stated, [1395 → 1398] I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity [1398 → 1400] as a divine revelation. [1400 → 1403] I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish [1403 → 1406] Christianity to be true, for if so, [1406 → 1408] the plain language of the text seems to show [1408 → 1410] that the men who do not believe, [1410 → 1412] and this would include my father, brother, [1412 → 1414] and almost all my best friends, [1414 → 1416] will be everlastingly punished. [1416 → 1419] And this is a damnable doctrine. [1420 → 1424] Thomas Huxley, Darwin's bulldog, wrote, [1424 → 1427] If I have a wish to live thirty years, [1427 → 1429] it is that I may see the foot of science [1429 → 1431] on the necks of her enemies. [1431 → 1434] One of evolution's greatest merits in my eyes [1434 → 1436] is the fact that it occupies a position [1436 → 1439] of complete and irreconcilable antagonism [1439 → 1441] to that vigorous and consistent enemy [1441 → 1443] of the highest intellectual, moral, [1443 → 1446] and social life of mankind, [1446 → 1448] the Catholic Church. [1448 → 1450] By next Friday evening, [1450 → 1454] they will all be convinced that they are monkeys. [1454 → 1456] Charles Lyell, geologist, [1456 → 1460] and one of Charles Darwin's closest friends confessed, [1460 → 1463] I am grappling not with the ordinary arm of flesh [1463 → 1465] but with principalities and powers, [1465 → 1469] and I must put on all my armor. [1469 → 1472] Darwin said of his mentor, [1472 → 1474] Lyell is most firmly convinced [1474 → 1477] that he has shaken the faith in the Genesis flood [1477 → 1479] far more efficiently by never having said a word [1479 → 1483] against the Bible than if he had acted otherwise. [1483 → 1486] Ernst Haeckel, influential German naturalist [1486 → 1489] and friend of Darwin, declared, [1489 → 1492] On one side, spiritual freedom and truth, [1492 → 1495] reason and culture, evolution and progress [1495 → 1498] stand under the bright banner of science. [1498 → 1501] On the other side, under the black flag of hierarchy, [1501 → 1504] stands spiritual slavery and falsehood, [1504 → 1506] irrationality and barbarism, [1506 → 1509] superstition and retrogression. [1509 → 1514] Evolution is the heavy artillery in the struggle for truth. [1514 → 1517] True and enduring peace there cannot be [1517 → 1521] until one of the combatants lies powerless on the ground. [1521 → 1523] Either the Church wins, [1523 → 1526] and then farewell to all free science and free teaching, [1526 → 1530] or else the modern rational state proves victorious. [1530 → 1532] Then, in the 20th century, [1532 → 1535] human culture, freedom, and prosperity [1535 → 1540] will continue their progressive development. [1540 → 1544] Eugene de Bois, discoverer of Java Man, claimed, [1544 → 1548] The origin of species brought about reorientation [1548 → 1550] of our entire knowledge of nature. [1550 → 1555] It was the signpost to a new era and a new world view. [1555 → 1558] Nothing gives man the right to demand an exception, [1558 → 1560] a privilege for himself. [1560 → 1563] To lay claim to a special act of creation [1563 → 1567] for his appearance in the ranks of living beings. [1567 → 1571] Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, stated, [1571 → 1573] In the evolutionary pattern of thought, [1573 → 1577] there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. [1577 → 1580] The earth was not created, it evolved. [1580 → 1583] So did all the animals, including our human selves, [1583 → 1586] mind and soul, as well as brain and body. [1586 → 1588] And so did religion. [1588 → 1592] Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness [1592 → 1594] in the arms of a demonized father figure [1594 → 1598] whom he has himself created. [1598 → 1602] Nobel laureate and scientist Jacques Monod wrote, [1602 → 1605] The ancient covenant is in pieces. [1605 → 1607] Man knows at last that he is alone [1607 → 1609] in the universe's unfeeling immensity, [1609 → 1612] out of which he emerged only by chance. [1612 → 1617] His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty. [1617 → 1621] Leading atheist and author Richard Dawkins has claimed, [1621 → 1626] I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, [1626 → 1631] comparable to the smallpox virus, but harder to eradicate. [1631 → 1635] Astronomer and writer Carl Sagan declared, [1635 → 1640] Our ancestors worshipped the sun, and they were far from foolish. [1640 → 1643] If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, [1644 → 1648] does it not make sense to revere the sun and stars? [1648 → 1654] Biologist, philosopher, and author William Provine has explained, [1654 → 1657] Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology [1657 → 1659] tells us loud and clear. [1659 → 1664] There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. [1664 → 1667] There is no life after death. [1667 → 1671] When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. [1671 → 1672] That's the end for me. [1672 → 1675] There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, [1675 → 1680] no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans either. [1680 → 1685] Stephen Hawking, former member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, [1685 → 1689] which advises the Pope on scientific matters, has declared, [1689 → 1692] We are each free to believe what we want, [1692 → 1697] and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God. [1698 → 1702] No one created the universe, and no one directs our fate. [1702 → 1705] This leads me to a profound realization. [1705 → 1709] There is probably no heaven and no afterlife either. [1709 → 1712] I regard the brain as a computer, [1712 → 1715] which will stop working when its components fail. [1715 → 1720] There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers. [1720 → 1724] That is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. [1728 → 1735] When the possibility is raised that leading evolutionists from Darwin onward [1735 → 1739] may have endorsed evolution due to their materialistic worldview, [1739 → 1742] it is common to hear some Christians point out [1742 → 1746] that not all evolutionists are avowed atheists. [1748 → 1753] In recent years, one of the most prominent evolutionists has been Kenneth Miller, [1753 → 1758] a professed Catholic whom many regard as holding a reasonable synthesis [1758 → 1761] between the Catholic faith and evolution. [1761 → 1766] Many of Miller's evolutionary claims will be evaluated in this series, [1766 → 1769] but at this point, it is important to avoid the assumption [1769 → 1772] that since Miller professes to be Catholic, [1772 → 1778] he must be a theistic evolutionist who believes that God somehow directed evolution. [1778 → 1781] In Finding Darwin's God, Miller writes, [1781 → 1787] Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected. [1787 → 1789] Even if God can intervene in nature, [1789 → 1796] why should he when nature can do a perfectly fine job of achieving his aims all by itself? [1797 → 1802] Also, in direct contradiction to Humani Generis and other magisterial teachings [1802 → 1808] establishing that Genesis does pertain to true history, Miller writes, [1809 → 1813] It is time to place Genesis alongside the geocentric myth [1813 → 1819] in the basket of stories that once, in a world of intellectual naivete, made helpful sense. [1821 → 1826] Why does Miller insist that evolution is undirected? [1826 → 1831] Father Chad Rippager, who holds a PhD in philosophy, explains. [1831 → 1836] It is apparent that Miller has constructed a fence of naturalism around the origins [1836 → 1839] just as leading evolutionists from Darwin to Hawking have done. [1839 → 1843] This is a philosophical maneuver done to keep God out [1843 → 1848] for how could Miller scientifically determine whether evolutionary processes were directed by God? [1848 → 1853] And we have a right to ask if Miller is qualified to undertake this philosophical task [1853 → 1858] or if he is misusing the trust naturally given to scientists by the public. [1858 → 1864] Later episodes also illustrate that Miller uses extremely misleading scientific claims to argue his case. [1864 → 1867] And so we should be cautious. [1867 → 1872] While truth cannot contradict truth, bad science tends to follow bad philosophy. [1872 → 1878] And this is what we see again and again in the writings of Kenneth Miller and other leading evolutionists. [1879 → 1884] The insistence that evolution is an unsupervised, undirected process [1884 → 1887] originated with Darwin, who wrote, [1887 → 1891] However much we may wish it, we can hardly follow the belief [1891 → 1895] that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines. [1895 → 1902] Confirmation that Miller's definition of evolution incorporates philosophical and theological concepts [1902 → 1907] is found in the 1995 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution [1907 → 1912] issued by the National Association of Biology Teachers, the NABT. [1912 → 1920] This statement declared evolution to be an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process. [1920 → 1924] But following numerous objections, the statement was not retained, [1924 → 1928] with the director of the NABT finally acknowledging [1928 → 1933] that to say that evolution is unsupervised is to make a theological statement. [1933 → 1939] But the concession did not signify a shift in the underlying view of leading evolutionists. [1939 → 1944] In the 2005 controversy over science standards in Kansas, for example, [1944 → 1951] a letter was sent by 38 Nobel laureates to the Kansas State Board of Education that stated in part, [1960 → 1966] And the letter then expressed concern over the board's recommendation of August 8, 2005 [1966 → 1970] to allow standards that include greater criticism of evolution. [1971 → 1978] Kenneth Miller's insistence that origins must be undirected explains why he is welcomed by fellow evolutionists [1978 → 1983] and it also explains why Miller makes frequent verbal attacks on creationists [1983 → 1989] and those who believe that the observable evidence indicates an intelligent designer. [1989 → 1994] Miller is doing a great service to the biology arm of the National Academy of Science, [1994 → 1998] of whom 95% are atheists according to surveys. [1999 → 2003] But he is doing a great disservice to millions of Catholics, [2003 → 2007] including well-known apologists, educators, and media personnel, [2007 → 2011] who have mistakenly relied upon his authority as a scientist, [2011 → 2017] his profession of Catholic belief, and his assurance that the evidence for evolution is strong. [2017 → 2024] Combined, the previous quotations demonstrate that it is a serious mistake to accept evolution [2024 → 2031] solely on the authority of scientists who are philosophically or professionally committed to naturalism. [2031 → 2037] The danger of philosophical bias helps explain why St. Thomas warned in the Summa Theologica, [2043 → 2047] Moreover, consider the position taken, consciously or not, [2047 → 2051] by Catholics who reject the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation [2051 → 2054] due to the evolutionary claims of academics [2054 → 2058] who are mistakenly viewed as presenting evidence in an unbiased manner. [2058 → 2060] As Hugh Owen explains, [2082 → 2087] to be brought to light by unbelieving evolutionists and philosophers, [2087 → 2092] many of whom openly declared their hatred for God and the Church. [2092 → 2095] While many Catholics have taken such a position, [2095 → 2098] we will see that from a scientific perspective, [2098 → 2103] there is no reason to have abandoned the traditional teaching of the Church on origins. [2112 → 2114] cannot be taken at face value. [2114 → 2119] Molecular biologist and Catholic instructor Pam Acker explains, [2119 → 2125] The best way to evaluate evolutionary claims is to go beyond the high school or college biology textbooks, [2125 → 2128] as well as other works written for popular consumption, [2128 → 2134] and to directly and critically evaluate the evidence for and against biological and cosmic evolution [2134 → 2136] that's contained in the scientific literature. [2136 → 2138] This is the approach taken in this series, [2139 → 2142] and I believe that the results will astound many viewers who will see [2142 → 2146] that while the scientific journals are completely committed to evolution and naturalism, [2146 → 2148] the journals do not target the general public [2148 → 2153] and are more forthcoming about the massive shortcomings of evolutionary and naturalistic claims. [2157 → 2161] Before proceeding further, some key terms are defined. [2163 → 2167] Biological evolution, also called Darwinism herein, [2167 → 2170] centers around the notion of common descent, [2170 → 2175] the claim that all life forms evolved from one simple life form. [2175 → 2181] If true, then humans are related to the amoeba, the monarch butterfly, and the chimpanzee. [2181 → 2187] It is just a matter of how long ago we shared a common ancestor and the same genetic code. [2188 → 2193] The notion of common descent is commonly represented by the so-called tree of life [2193 → 2196] that dates back to Darwin and Heckel. [2196 → 2202] We shall see, however, that the tree of life is grossly inconsistent with the fossil record [2202 → 2209] as repeatedly acknowledged by leading evolutionists such as paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. [2209 → 2216] Also, it will be seen that evolutionists put forth examples of limited variation within a species, [2216 → 2220] which all sides agree occurs from parent to offspring, [2220 → 2224] and extrapolate these observations to claim that over eons of time, [2224 → 2228] limited variation gave rise to all animal kinds. [2228 → 2234] We will see, however, that such an extrapolation of limited variation is unjustified [2234 → 2239] based on information theory, the genetic evidence, and the fossil evidence. [2239 → 2245] This means that it is important to distinguish between the limited variation within a species [2245 → 2247] and what can be called macroevolution, [2248 → 2251] although evolutionists do not make this distinction. [2251 → 2258] Instead, they falsely claim that examples of limited variation support the belief in macroevolution, [2258 → 2263] and they lump everything into the term Darwinism, or biological evolution. [2263 → 2270] This allows them to claim that any change, no matter how limited, is proof of Darwinism. [2271 → 2277] In Ken Miller's 2014 high school textbook edition of Biology, Foundation Edition, [2277 → 2284] he and co-author Joseph Levine explain to students that the process of change over time is called evolution. [2284 → 2289] If this were really an adequate definition of evolution, we would all be evolutionists [2289 → 2293] because everyone agrees that there is limited change between parent and offspring. [2293 → 2297] What this definition implies, however, is that given enough time, [2297 → 2302] the same processes resulting in limited variation leads to the diversity of life [2302 → 2304] now observed and found in the fossil record. [2304 → 2308] This is an unfounded extrapolation that goes against the evidence. [2308 → 2312] Nevertheless, the definition is used as it allows the authors to convince students [2312 → 2314] that biological evolution is beyond question. [2315 → 2321] When using the term species in this series, we will adopt the widely used definition [2321 → 2327] that considers individuals to be part of the same species if they are able to produce fertile offspring. [2327 → 2334] The notion of an animal kind is less precise, but the term is repeatedly used in genesis [2334 → 2337] and it is generally thought to be broader than a species. [2337 → 2343] For example, it is very possible that dogs, foxes, wolves, and coyotes [2343 → 2346] belong to the same original animal kind. [2347 → 2351] The Mechanism of Evolution [2351 → 2359] According to Darwin, the evolutionary process begins with a random physical change in an individual. [2359 → 2364] This change must be heritable, that is, passed from parent to offspring, [2364 → 2371] and it must be beneficial in that it increases the individual's fitness or ability to survive. [2371 → 2377] Over time, the random beneficial heritable change eventually becomes established within the population [2377 → 2382] as nature favors those individuals who are better able to survive [2382 → 2386] and as a result, the more fit replace the less fit. [2386 → 2389] This is the process of natural selection. [2389 → 2393] As this process continues over great periods of time, [2393 → 2397] new varieties and eventually new species are claimed to emerge. [2398 → 2404] Darwin did not know what led to random changes as he had no understanding of genetics. [2404 → 2410] During the 1930s, evolutionists speculated that it was the rare beneficial mutation, [2410 → 2416] a copying error in the genetic code, that was primarily responsible for random physical changes [2416 → 2419] and was the mechanism of evolution. [2419 → 2423] With this addition, the theory came to be called Neo-Darwinism [2423 → 2427] or referred to as the Modern Synthesis. [2427 → 2434] Today, because most evolutionists continue to see beneficial mutations as the key mechanism of evolution, [2434 → 2441] the term Darwinism is commonly understood to incorporate the Neo-Darwinian view of mutations. [2441 → 2447] We will see, however, that the claimed role of mutations as a legitimate mechanism fails. [2448 → 2455] Naturalism is the belief that only natural processes account for all observable phenomena. [2455 → 2461] We shall see that naturalism is not supported by the evidence in biology or cosmology. [2461 → 2468] Rather, naturalism is counter to the evidence and is an unsupported philosophical assumption. [2468 → 2473] Materialism is an atheistic view of the world or worldview [2474 → 2479] holding that nothing exists other than the material universe. [2479 → 2484] Materialism necessarily includes the concept of naturalism [2484 → 2489] because materialists, by definition, reject the supernatural. [2489 → 2494] Closely related to materialism is the atheistic philosophy of humanism [2494 → 2500] which incorporates Darwinism and rose to prominence in the early 20th century. [2501 → 2508] Experimental science refers to the area of natural science involving observable processes or phenomena [2508 → 2512] that can be tested using the scientific method. [2512 → 2516] In this method, an observational-based hypothesis is developed [2516 → 2520] to answer a question about the natural world or universe. [2520 → 2524] The hypothesis is tested through a controlled experiment [2524 → 2531] and the results are then analyzed and used to confirm or refine the original hypothesis. [2531 → 2535] Origins science is the last term defined here [2535 → 2540] and competing definitions go to the core of the debate over evolutionary biology, [2540 → 2544] Big Bang astronomy and gradualism in geology. [2544 → 2549] Because this definition is so important, we present two possible meanings. [2549 → 2551] The first definition is, [2551 → 2556] Origins science is a historical science involving observation of the world or universe [2556 → 2563] and developing the best naturalistic explanation of how all that we observe came into being. [2563 → 2565] The second definition is, [2565 → 2571] Origins science involves determining the truth about the origin of the object being studied. [2571 → 2577] We invite you now to pause this video and to reflect upon these two definitions. [2577 → 2582] If you are in a group, discuss the most appropriate definition. [2585 → 2593] Next, we present four statements and invite you to assign each to the definition of origins that fits best. [2594 → 2597] Science, fundamentally, is a game. [2597 → 2602] Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the physical and material universe [2602 → 2607] in terms of purely physical and material causes without invoking the supernatural. [2607 → 2609] Richard E. Dickerson [2610 → 2613] Science is actually rather easily defined. [2613 → 2619] It is simply the human activity of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena. [2619 → 2621] Kenneth Miller [2622 → 2625] There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. [2625 → 2628] There is no place for dogma in science. [2628 → 2632] The scientist is free and must be free to ask any question, [2632 → 2634] to doubt any assertion, [2634 → 2636] to seek for any evidence, [2636 → 2638] to correct any errors. [2639 → 2641] J. Robert Oppenheimer [2642 → 2648] We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, [2648 → 2655] in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, [2655 → 2657] because we have a prior commitment, [2657 → 2659] a commitment to materialism. [2659 → 2662] It is not that the methods and institutions of science [2662 → 2667] somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, [2667 → 2669] but, on the contrary, [2669 → 2673] that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [2673 → 2676] to create an apparatus of investigation [2676 → 2680] and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, [2680 → 2682] no matter how counterintuitive, [2682 → 2685] no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. [2685 → 2688] Moreover, that materialism is absolute, [2688 → 2692] for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door. [2693 → 2695] Richard Luangten [2695 → 2698] We again invite you to pause this video, [2698 → 2703] match the statement with the definition of origins science to which it applies [2703 → 2709] and to then re-evaluate your initial choice for the best definition for origins science. [2715 → 2719] Origins Science [2724 → 2729] The following assignment of the four statements is most accurate. [2730 → 2736] Now, which of the two definitions of origins science is most appropriate? [2736 → 2738] Hugh Owen explains. [2739 → 2741] The first definition is highly flawed, [2741 → 2744] because at the outset and before the evidence is considered, [2744 → 2747] a naturalistic explanation is mandated. [2747 → 2752] By requiring origins to be explained through naturalistic processes, [2752 → 2757] competing truth claims that do exist from the domains of theology and philosophy [2757 → 2759] are eliminated from consideration. [2759 → 2763] This means that no matter how poorly a naturalistic explanation [2763 → 2767] such as Darwinism or the Big Bang actually explain origins, [2767 → 2773] they must be accepted over competing explanations not involving natural processes. [2774 → 2776] This is not sound science. [2776 → 2780] It is a largely hidden and inappropriate philosophical maneuver [2780 → 2785] preventing us from following the evidence to the best explanation. [2786 → 2789] All can agree that experimental science properly involves [2789 → 2793] the search for natural explanations of natural phenomena. [2793 → 2798] However, it is inappropriate to assume that origins must be attributed to natural processes, [2798 → 2801] because doing so may not lead us to the truth. [2801 → 2803] To give a concrete example, [2803 → 2806] the first definition eliminates the possibility [2806 → 2809] that God specially created the body of Adam and Eve [2809 → 2813] and forces us to accept evolution of the human body [2813 → 2817] no matter how poor the paleoanthropological evidence is. [2817 → 2821] But by dismissing the possibility of special creation at the outset, [2821 → 2823] we may never reach the truth. [2823 → 2827] In fact, we will see that no fossil or genetic evidence [2827 → 2829] supports claims for human evolution. [2829 → 2831] The real evidence remains consistent [2831 → 2835] with the direct and immediate creation of Adam and Eve by God, [2835 → 2840] making human origins a matter of historical theology, not natural science. [2840 → 2844] Holding this conclusion doesn't make one anti-science. [2844 → 2848] It means that one recognizes the broad boundaries of origin science. [2848 → 2852] It also means that one doesn't force natural science [2852 → 2855] to give an explanation that it cannot truly provide, [2855 → 2859] an explanation that could cause it to degrade into a pseudoscience [2859 → 2864] that misrepresents the evidence and hinders the discovery of the truth. [2866 → 2868] All of this means that we need to choose [2868 → 2872] whether we are going to seek the truth about origins or not. [2872 → 2874] If we seek the truth, [2874 → 2879] then we must be willing to explore truth claims about origins from all domains. [2879 → 2882] We must break free of the chains of naturalism. [2882 → 2884] But this is not easily done. [2885 → 2888] The challenge lies not so much with the realization [2888 → 2892] that naturalistic claims of origins fail scientifically. [2892 → 2895] This will become obvious in subsequent episodes. [2895 → 2898] The real challenge is to acknowledge that, [2898 → 2900] individually and collectively, [2900 → 2903] many Catholics were led from the path of truth [2903 → 2908] by a false philosophy masquerading as legitimate science, [2908 → 2913] and this departure has had horrific historical consequences. [2913 → 2916] Such an acknowledgement requires humility [2916 → 2919] and can be especially difficult for Catholic teachers, [2919 → 2923] apologists, biblical scholars, and clergy [2923 → 2927] who may have publicly endorsed evolution in the classroom, [2927 → 2930] from the pulpit, or on Catholic programming. [2930 → 2932] Once such an endorsement is made [2932 → 2936] and one's thinking about origins becomes dominated by evolution, [2936 → 2941] it becomes much easier to label and dismiss those who question evolution [2942 → 2946] than it is to study the evidence and to consider the possibility [2946 → 2949] that the hypothesis was endorsed without good reasons [2949 → 2952] or, as Pope Pius XII stated, [2952 → 2956] out of the fear of being considered ignorant of the latest science. [2956 → 2960] Unfortunately, this has been the path taken by many Catholics [2960 → 2962] in a position of influence [2962 → 2965] and it has resulted in a great deal of confusion [2965 → 2968] that could have and should have been avoided. [2968 → 2970] I say this not to create tension, [2970 → 2975] but to underscore the importance of undertaking this study with humility [2975 → 2979] and sincere prayer that the Holy Spirit leads each of us to the truth [2979 → 2982] and cleanses our worldview from error. [2983 → 2986] The final issue addressed in this introduction [2986 → 2989] concerns the relevance of the origins debate. [2989 → 2991] While later episodes will document [2991 → 2994] the horrific historical consequences of evolutionary thought [2994 → 2997] in Western culture and global affairs, [2997 → 2999] here we discuss the growing evidence [2999 → 3003] that the origins debate is anything but an academic affair [3003 → 3007] that has no impact within the Catholic and larger Christian community. [3007 → 3010] Rather, recent evidence suggests [3010 → 3013] that evolutionary thought is a major contributor [3013 → 3015] to the rejection of the Catholic faith [3015 → 3019] and Christianity in general by millions of youth. [3019 → 3023] This rejection is occurring at an unprecedented rate [3023 → 3026] and constitutes the greatest crisis of faith [3026 → 3029] in the history of the Catholic Church. [3029 → 3032] Why is this crisis occurring? [3032 → 3036] For 19 centuries, a single teaching on origins [3036 → 3038] pointed to the truth of Christianity [3038 → 3040] to the exclusion of other worldviews. [3040 → 3045] Today, evolution is taught as an undirected naturalistic process [3045 → 3048] in public schools and in most Catholic schools. [3048 → 3052] In turn, students soon reason that modern science [3052 → 3056] is compatible with a host of atheistic and pantheistic worldviews, [3056 → 3061] but it is not compatible with the straightforward account of creation [3061 → 3065] taught and defended by the Catholic Church from the beginning. [3065 → 3068] Polls show that as a result, [3068 → 3070] many students are open to the possibility [3070 → 3073] that alternative evolution-based worldviews [3073 → 3076] are true and worthy of their allegiance. [3077 → 3083] A 2016 Pew Research survey of non-believers in the United States [3083 → 3089] indicated that while 78% were raised as a member of a specific faith group, [3089 → 3094] about half, 49%, indicate that a lack of belief [3094 → 3097] led them to move away from religion. [3097 → 3100] This includes many respondents who mentioned science [3100 → 3104] as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, [3104 → 3106] including one who said, [3106 → 3110] I'm a scientist now, and I don't believe in miracles. [3110 → 3115] Others referenced common sense, logic, or a lack of evidence. [3115 → 3118] Similarly, a recent study of young ex-Catholics [3118 → 3122] that sought to understand why youth are leaving the Church [3122 → 3124] revealed the following. [3124 → 3126] Young Catholics are leaving the faith. [3126 → 3130] Only about two-thirds or fewer, born in 1982 or later, [3130 → 3134] who were raised Catholic remain Catholic as adults. [3134 → 3136] During interviews with youth and young adults [3136 → 3138] who had left the Catholic faith, [3138 → 3145] 63% said they stopped being Catholic between the ages of 10 and 17. [3145 → 3150] One in five surveyed reflected that they no longer believed in God or religion. [3150 → 3154] No other reason was provided as frequently. [3154 → 3158] Some of the typical reasons given in their own words were, [3158 → 3164] Because I grew up and realized Christianity was a story like Santa or the Easter Bunny. [3164 → 3168] I realized that religion is in complete contradiction [3168 → 3170] with the rational and scientific world, [3170 → 3175] and to continue to subscribe to a religion would be hypocritical. [3175 → 3179] It no longer fits into what I understand of the universe. [3179 → 3185] Only 13% said they were ever likely to return to the Catholic Church. [3185 → 3189] Half of the young former Catholics self-identify today [3189 → 3194] as atheists, agnostics, or those without a religious affiliation. [3194 → 3198] These statistics are consistent with the results of surveys [3198 → 3202] conducted by various evangelical and Protestant groups. [3202 → 3206] These surveys reveal that at least 69%, [3206 → 3209] some surveys indicate up to 94%, [3209 → 3214] of Christian students reject the faith upon leaving high school. [3214 → 3217] Some commentators have concluded from such surveys [3217 → 3220] that Catholic youth would not be leaving the faith [3220 → 3223] if theistic evolution and Big Bang cosmology [3223 → 3229] were more widely taught as the proper reconciliation of faith and science. [3229 → 3231] However, this makes no sense, [3231 → 3235] because almost nothing but theistic evolution has been taught [3235 → 3239] in most Catholic institutions for the past 40 years. [3239 → 3244] Claiming that the solution is to teach more Big Bang cosmology and evolution [3244 → 3249] is like Planned Parenthood saying that the way to cut down on teen pregnancies [3249 → 3252] is to have more sex education. [3252 → 3257] Both claims suffer from confusion regarding cause and effect. [3257 → 3260] Based on more than 20 years worth of discussions with parents [3260 → 3263] and with young adults who have left the Catholic Church, [3263 → 3267] I will summarize their testimony as to why theistic evolution [3267 → 3271] has much to do with the current crisis of faith. [3271 → 3276] When many Catholic students enter high school and are bombarded with Darwinism, [3276 → 3278] a sense of bitterness emerges because they believe [3278 → 3281] that they were lied to when they were young. [3281 → 3286] In their minds, the alleged fact of evolution, including theistic evolution, [3286 → 3290] expose the Genesis creation account as a myth or allegory, [3290 → 3293] and they find no consolation in being told that [3293 → 3296] Genesis still has a spiritual meaning. [3297 → 3300] For they once believed, or at least know very well [3300 → 3302] that all of their fathers in the faith believed, [3302 → 3306] that the Genesis creation account had a basis in true history, [3306 → 3309] which their instructors now deny. [3309 → 3313] They wonder what value there is in seeking a spiritual meaning [3313 → 3316] and what they are now told is a myth, [3316 → 3320] or how myths and allegories constitute a sound basis for essential doctrine [3320 → 3324] regarding holy marriage and the sanctity of life. [3324 → 3327] Very quickly, doubt about Genesis 1 and 2 [3327 → 3330] leads many students to view all of sacred scripture [3330 → 3333] as consisting of the falsehoods and forgeries of men, [3333 → 3338] due to scripture's unbroken view of the creation events as real history. [3338 → 3341] Other students simply feel no inclination to worship [3341 → 3343] a God that allowed species to emerge [3343 → 3348] only through millions of years of starvation, death, and mutations. [3348 → 3352] This view reveals just how far removed from reality [3352 → 3356] have been the efforts of Kenneth Miller as well as the Catholic scholars [3356 → 3358] who for more than a hundred years now [3358 → 3362] have promoted Darwin's forced conclusion in The Origin of Species, [3362 → 3366] that from the war of nature, from famine and death, [3366 → 3369] the production of the higher animals directly follows, [3369 → 3372] that there is grandeur in this view of life. [3372 → 3376] The tragic reality is that many Catholic youth [3376 → 3379] have followed Kenneth Miller in search of Darwin's God, [3379 → 3383] and they have found Miller's and Darwin's God of death and destruction, [3383 → 3388] and they have walked away from Christianity just as Darwin did. [3389 → 3392] Incredibly, additional polling indicates [3392 → 3396] that the abandonment of the faith to non-Christian worldviews [3396 → 3399] is occurring regardless of whether or not students [3399 → 3402] attend public or Christian schools. [3403 → 3407] This trend has been confirmed by the Nehemiah Institute [3407 → 3411] and more than 100,000 surveys of students since 1988. [3411 → 3417] These survey results document that the beliefs of public school children as a whole [3417 → 3422] have reflected humanist and other non-Christian worldviews since 1994. [3422 → 3425] Amazingly, for children in Christian schools, [3425 → 3429] the long-term trend has been just as sharply downward, [3429 → 3431] with the curve simply lagging over time, [3431 → 3434] such that Christian schooled students as a whole [3434 → 3439] have held beliefs reflective of non-Christian worldviews since 2001. [3439 → 3442] Homeschooled children have fared slightly better [3442 → 3445] but still fall within the moderate Christian category [3445 → 3450] and fall well short of the biblical theism category. [3451 → 3454] Every Christian should be aghast at these trends [3454 → 3457] because they show that we are losing the war of worldviews. [3457 → 3461] And every parent, every clergy member, and every Catholic educator [3461 → 3464] who cares about the eternal destiny of their fellow man [3464 → 3466] should be desperately asking, [3466 → 3469] Can anything be done to stop the crisis of faith [3469 → 3472] when even religious schools are failing to protect children? [3472 → 3475] The answer is that instructors who are humble enough [3475 → 3478] to acknowledge the obvious truth that current methods are failing [3478 → 3482] and parents who are willing to take an active part in their child's education [3482 → 3484] are not without hope. [3484 → 3486] Let me explain why. [3486 → 3489] Additional survey results from the Nehemiah Institute [3489 → 3492] indicate that there does exist a single educational approach [3492 → 3496] that has actually moved students more strongly into the Christian worldview, [3496 → 3501] even as all other approaches in public and traditional religious schools have failed. [3502 → 3504] What is this approach? [3504 → 3508] It involves the use of a worldview curricula. [3508 → 3512] Generally, this involves educating students about the reality [3512 → 3514] of the war of worldviews, [3514 → 3518] identifying the underlying presuppositions and arguments [3518 → 3520] of non-Christian worldviews, [3520 → 3523] especially the reliance on evolutionary claims, [3523 → 3528] and exposing the fallacies on which non-Christian worldviews are built. [3528 → 3532] In this manner, when students leave the protective umbrella of their homes [3532 → 3535] and are exposed to the foundational claims [3535 → 3538] of humanism and other non-Christian worldviews, [3538 → 3541] they already know why the claims are being made, [3541 → 3544] they know how to refute the claims, [3544 → 3547] and many will be emboldened to protect others. [3547 → 3551] Through the worldview approach, students are not only protected, [3551 → 3554] they are also prepared for what lies ahead. [3554 → 3558] Foundations Restored provides Catholic parents and educators [3558 → 3561] with the needed worldview approach. [3561 → 3564] Please see the teacher's guide for more detail [3564 → 3567] about incorporating this series into students' curricula. [3568 → 3570] In the area of natural science, [3570 → 3574] the worldview approach does not mean that Darwinism or the Big Bang Theory are neglected. [3574 → 3576] It simply means that evidence from the scientific literature, [3576 → 3581] both for and against cosmic and biological evolutionary claims, is presented. [3581 → 3583] This is nothing radical. [3583 → 3585] It simply involves evaluating evolutionary claims [3585 → 3588] in a manner obedient to the demands of the magisterium. [3588 → 3590] This honest presentation of the evidence, [3590 → 3592] which secular educators will not allow [3592 → 3594] and which most Catholic educators fail to undertake, [3594 → 3597] is sufficient to expose all atheistic worldviews [3597 → 3600] as resting on a very insecure foundation. [3600 → 3602] When Darwinism is exposed as lacking, [3602 → 3605] the proper foundation about origins can be restored, [3605 → 3608] and the truth of Christianity to the exclusion of evolution-based worldviews [3608 → 3610] will readily become apparent. [3616 → 3621] Foundations Restored explains the traditional church doctrine of creation [3621 → 3624] and critically evaluates the scientific evidence [3624 → 3627] for biological and cosmic evolution [3627 → 3632] that has caused so many to abandon the traditional understanding of origins. [3633 → 3636] The series is organized as follows. [3638 → 3645] Episode 2 explains why the traditional doctrine of creation faded from Catholic memory. [3646 → 3651] Episodes 3 and 4 present the traditional Catholic teaching on creation [3651 → 3656] from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. [3657 → 3662] Part 2 of Episode 3 also evaluates whether St. Augustine was an evolutionist, [3662 → 3665] as is sometimes falsely claimed. [3666 → 3670] Episodes 5 through 7 evaluate evolutionary claims [3670 → 3673] commonly found in biology classroom textbooks [3673 → 3678] and explains why these claims contradict evidence in the scientific literature, [3678 → 3684] which includes periodicals such as Nature, Science, and the Journal of Human Evolution. [3685 → 3689] Episode 8 expands the discussion into astronomy [3689 → 3691] and assesses whether the Big Bang Theory [3691 → 3696] and the claim that the universe is billions of years old are justified by the evidence. [3696 → 3701] Episodes 9 and 10 discuss whether the fossil record and other evidence [3701 → 3704] supports the claim of gradualism in geology [3704 → 3710] or whether the geological evidence is better explained by a global, catastrophic flood. [3711 → 3720] Episodes 11 through 13 document the incredibly destructive impact of evolution since 1859. [3725 → 3728] If you approach this series with a teachable spirit [3728 → 3732] and are willing to critically evaluate evolutionary claims, [3732 → 3736] I believe that you will not only discover the truth about our origins, [3736 → 3740] but that you will end up facing the same decision that I did several years ago. [3740 → 3744] The decision is whether, out of love for truth and for others, [3744 → 3749] you will go beyond a simple intellectual transformation and will help to restore the truth, [3749 → 3753] or whether you will resolve that the price of truth is too great [3753 → 3756] and the tide of naturalism is too strong to oppose. [3756 → 3759] The restoration of truth will not be easily accomplished, [3759 → 3762] but as you progress through this series, please remember. [3763 → 3767] Truth matters, and lies have consequences. [3767 → 3771] Unless we diligently seek the truth, we will not find it. [3771 → 3776] Unless we love and defend the truth, we will not preserve it. [3776 → 3781] If we depart from truth, then mankind will suffer the consequences, [3781 → 3786] and we have not the foresight to see where the departure will yet lead. [3786 → 3791] We end this introduction having taken the first step of a profound journey [3791 → 3794] to find the truth about origins. [3794 → 3799] You will soon see compelling evidence that the universe and life [3799 → 3805] are not the product of natural processes involving cosmic and biological evolution, [3805 → 3811] but result from God's direct and supernatural creation. [3811 → 3816] Our search leads not to the emergence of life in some warm little pond, [3816 → 3822] but back to a familiar path and an understanding held by all the church fathers and doctors [3822 → 3826] called the Creation Providence Framework, [3826 → 3829] which is introduced in the next episode. [3829 → 3834] This framework places the truth about origins in the domain of historical theology, [3834 → 3840] not in the pseudo-scientific world of naturalism ushered in by Descartes and Darwin [3840 → 3843] that led many astray. [3843 → 3849] I pray that as the false claims propping up naturalistic explanations of origins are explained, [3849 → 3855] you will realize the importance and logic of returning to the doctrine of creation [3855 → 3858] taught by the church for 19 centuries, [3858 → 3864] and I ask you to reflect on the following words from 2 Timothy. [3903 → 3918] 1 Timothy 2 [3918 → 3938] 1 Timothy 2 [3948 → 3968] 1 Timothy 2 [3968 → 3988] 1 Timothy 2 [3988 → 4008] 1 Timothy 2 [4008 → 4028] 1 Timothy 2 [4038 → 4058] 1 Timothy 2