“Darwin’s theory remains a theory,” he said. “This means that it should be taught to children as one of several theories, but children should know that others also exist”. Russian Orthodox prelates are not qualified to say anything about evolutionary biology. Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokolamsk doesn’t even know what a scientific theory is. This definition is from the National Academy of Sciences. Please note that intelligent design (and other versions of magical creation) are NOT scientific theories. Evolution, which is both a scientific theory and a basic scientific fact, is the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life. There’s nothing scientific and nothing true about religious beliefs in supernatural magic. “THEORY: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.”

“Hilarion stressed that religious teaching on creation should be taught alongside theories on the evolution of species.” Why does Hilarion think respectable science teachers would ever agree to give equal time to a religious idea in a science classroom? They would rather quit their jobs than lie to their students about what science is. http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

Human Ape, I think you have mistaken us for fundamentalists.  As many theologians, including especially Pope John Paul II, have shown, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.  Pope Benedict XVI himself has acknowledged evolution as a powerful scientific theory and has made clear that it is not inconsistent with our Catholic faith.  Indeed, despite the media’s constant attempts to lump us all in with other Christians, the Catholic faith has never taught that all Scripture is to be taken in what you would call a literal interpretation.  We Catholics, as well as the Orthodox, are not required to believe in a six-day creation. In fact, one could make a solid argument that the Book of Genesis proposes an entirely different way of understanding creation.  All specific Scriptural interpretations aside, Catholics have no cause to doubt the Big Bang or evolutionary theory, seeing as our theology is perfectly content seeing these as instruments of God’s creative will. I think Hilarion’s point was that a classroom environment which separates religious belief from science or is hostile to religion makes for a dysfunctional and incomplete study of science.  What good is it, after all, to study the created world if our discoveries to not lead us into a deeper knowledge of our Creator?  If the moment a student steps into the classroom, he must surrender his faith, then science is cutting out its own ultimate fulfillment and purpose.  Science can tell us so much about this world God made, His masterpiece, and as the arts will tell you, the study of any masterpiece reveals the mind of the artist behind it.  When science is seen only through an atheistic filter then it is not a real science at all, because science means “knowledge,” and as such its whole purpose is to know the truth.  The truth which science reveals is all around us, in atoms and molecules and cells and the physics of everyday life and movement, but just as omnipresent, no, even more so, is the Truth which theology reveals, for it is this Truth in which we live and move and have our being.  It is this Truth which made the universe, and it is this Truth in which science will find its ultimate fulfillment.  Let’s not give in to the folly of claiming that something so ubiquitous, so fixed, so reliable as Truth can only be discovered by one kind of study.  Theology is also a science; it seeks to know the Truth.  Faith and reason, theology and science, should work side-by-side.  Only then may the sciences find what they are seeking.

Life is a miracle.  It did not come by “magic” like you said human ape.  Evolution theory is a speculation, it is not a proven fact.  It is stupid, not scientific and rediculous to say that life came from nothing without a designer greater than us and evoluted by hazard. Life has to come from God, it is beautiful and it has a meaning.  It can’t come from nothing and evoluted by hazard, to affirm that is being totally not logic and stupid.

I totally agree with the orthodox prelate. People needs to meditate on what means evolution theory.  There are no species evolving on earth, there can be varial modifications like the color, the weigth or certain others, but never a change to another species. All species are perfect and they are not made by hazard. It’s infinately more irrational to believe in evolution theory than to believe that a beautiful painting found in the forest was made by hazard. The logic is to believe that a designer is behind all this. If you don’t believe in a designer behind all the species and the life on earth, you are not rational. Faith brings you to reason, it is why since the faith in Christ is there that people made discoveries and people were starting to really love each other in a society.

Methinks “Human Ape” doth protest too badly. 
Volokolamsk likely knows well what a capital-‘T’ “Theory” is.  I am even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and grant he may even also know the strengths and limitations of the Theory of Evolution.  “Human Ape” on the other hand gives us evidence that s/he does not seem to comprehend the distinction between the wonderfully powerful “Theory of Evolution” that can explain many facts, and the fact that not all “basic scientific facts” are consistent with the Theory. 
Many facts can indeed be explained by natural selection acting on variation (variation sometimes caused by mutation) in organisms that are developing in variable environments.  These include such facts as speciation within warblers or salamanders, or the adaptive significance of sickle cell trait, or why homo sapiens are not apes.  (Oops!)  Many other facts are not (yet) explained by this powerful Theory, such as the rapid emergence of diverse new forms in Cambrian explosion, or the ontogenetic assembly of a flagellum.  Punctuated equilibrium may be a good guess.  Isn’t the open-minded enterprise of science fascinating?!!
Volokolamsk may object to the presumption that Darwin’s particular take on the very old idea of evolution – or even the very powerful ‘Modern Synthesis’ – can explain all facts, even those beyond the data, such as (ironically) the actual “origin” of species, or the origin of life itself, or what threshold was crossed when earlier species within the genus homo evolved into human beings.  Volokolamsk may object to the unwarranted presumption that evolution is proof of Darwinism – that is, of the a priori materialist philosophy held as a matter of faith by many (but not all) scientists today, and that holds there is no God (proving a negative?), and that all there is is “stuff,” and that human are mere animals (a point made well so long ago in Ecclesiastes), and more…. 
One wonders what authority, college degree, crystal ball, alien artifact, credential-checking algorithm, divine inspiration or diabolical intervention gives “Human Ape” knowledge about who – Russian Orthodox prelates included – is qualified or not “to say anything about evolutionary biology.”  The fact is, given how Darwinism is used by some to assault human dignity, every person ought to have a say.  The fact is, there are philosophical and theological theories about origins that do not require or conflict with biological or cosmological evolution.  The history of these ideas is long and foundational to Western thought and civilization.  (“We hold these truths to be self evident …”)  One wonders by what logic an enlightened “Human Ape” could conclude these epistemologies should not “be taught to children as one of several theories” as the prelate suggests.  What truth would be denied by conceding these ideas have an age-appropriate place in a curriculum, if not a biology class?  Could it be that denying children an opportunity to know that other ideas exist would disqualify them from speaking about evolution?  Should we not expect those persons who grow up to earn Ph.D.’s in biology or genetics or anthropology should actually know some philosophy?
The contentiousness about the Theory of Evolution centers on how “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have” is being used to establish a hegemony of Darwinism.
And Micah Murphy has made a stellar response focusing on Truth and meaning of our origins from Scripture and Catholic Tradition.  I agree with everything he wrote.  He is right that “Hilarion’s point was that a classroom environment which separates religious belief from science or is hostile to religion makes for a dysfunctional and incomplete study of science” and I would add, of the World and human existence, as well.  Murphy also reminds “Human Ape” of the centuries-old lessons of the philosophers that, as John Paul II reminded us recently, “faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth,” that faith is reasonable, and that science does not have a monopoly on reason.

Why is it that PhD scientists (not creationists!) are abandoning evolution theory? Because they see the ever-increasing proof against it as conclusive! What they have to say is ignored because it threatens the atheistic scientific community’s worldview. For instance the newly discovered fact that sedimentary particles of which rocks are composed deposit rapidly (in weeks, not millions of years!) www.sedimentology.fr   This fact refutes the main proof for evolution – the fossil record. Most of the fossilised creatures must logically have lived contemporaneously.

Max Thürkauf teacher of physics and chemistry at Basle University in Switzerland who converted to Catholicism from a scientific materialist educational background wrote:

“The only certitude in Darwinism is that it cannot be demonstrated scientifically. It is a matter of faith; a faith not to have faith in God”

Peter

Looking at the article and the comments I see that there is a big misunderstanding of what is Science. Science is the best description of the material world we could get, and is subjected to a constant refinements. This description is entailing also some explanations of observed phenomena and facts. We name those explanations “theories”. Scientific theories not only make explanations of observed facts, but also provide testable predictions that pave the way for further observations (“discoveries”). To do that Scientists are making use of logic and reason, but Science is NOT Logic or Reason. Logic and Reason are instruments used by humans to understand the world, but world is not, by this way, built by Logic and Reason. You may understand planets’ orbits by drawing circles around a drawing of the sun, but, while the planets and the sun are really present on the sky, those circles are not existent.

If you think that Science is the Truth (as Atheists often believe) or that Science is part of what the Truth is (as, apparently, many Christians believe), you are doing big mistakes. A description of the word, even a detailed description of the world is only a mere description, and is telling nothing on what is the ultimate goal of the existence, or what are the God’s plan for us. The description of the paintings of the Sistine Chapel, or even the description of the method used by Buonarroti to draw such a magnificent sacred representation are telling nothing on the Michelangelo’s purposes to do it. Knowing him and his personality, perhaps by an historical research, will be more useful.
Saying this, I do not mean that one could not use the scientific knowledge for religious (or anti-religious) purposes. I’m only saying that the Scientific knowledge per se has nothing to do with religion or atheism.

So, why do we need to teach such a description of the world? Because it has been proved to be extremely useful, and is the base of the practical advancements that we name Technology. But Science must be taught as it is, a description of the world without philosophical or religious connotation. I personally believe that philosophy and religions should also be taught to children, and that this should entail the discussion of problems coming from the Scientific knowledge and from the Technological advancements. But this is NOT Science, and MUST NOT be confused with Science.

Metropolitan Alfeyev’s comments need to be taken in context and remain in context. That context is that the “Russian populist party, the Liberal Democrats, who have been suggesting that the growing power of the Russian Orthodox Church is undermining the secular constitution of the country.”

His remarks are not directed at science or scientists, per se. The same polarizing stratagems are advanced in America by rabid atheists who want to eradicate all reference to any god in the entire public sphere. This idea of Liberty is about dominance and control, not about the freedom of an individual to hear several ideas and choose the most reasonable one.