An intelligent design should go beyond the current environment, and take into consideration possible changes in the future and anything that might go wrong. That is, don’t design something so fragile that a small change to its environment would destroy it.

On the other hand, what we expect to see from evolution is that life-forms are tailored specifically for their environment. Presumably the butterfly’s environment has not change significantly since before it evolved to its present form. Evolution knows nothing about how fragile an environment is. If the environment doesn’t change regularly on a small enough time-scale for natural selection to take it into account, then why would natural selection favour a butterfly that could cope with a changed environment?

You are using the word “unfit” in an intelligent design sense! The butterfly is perfectly fit from a natural selection point of view, which can not foresee environmental changes and plan for an unknown future.

DARWINISM IS RELIGIOUS?

> Darwin’s theories are also implicitly “religious”

Darwinism is just science. If that science happens to indicate that no God was required in order for complex life to exist, then so be it. You can’t police science and only accept the outcomes that you like.

> the idea that only science can find truth

Hmm. So far only science has found truth. Everything I see around me was made possible via science (computer, TV, telephone, fridge, etc). I can’t think of a single thing that was made possible via religion, other than changes in human opinion (both good and bad). What has it given us? What diseases has it cured etc?

Darwinism is not taught in terms of religious implications, although they may be self-evident. It is also not taught in terms of good and bad, as you suggest. You mention the idea that survival of the fittest is a “good thing”. I’ve never heard any Darwinist say that. It’s what moves evolution forward, that’s all.

Please don’t lump all Darwinists in with Hitler! Darwinism says nothing about what “should” happen (eg like ONLY the strongest SHOULD survive). Hitler had his own agenda and used this as an excuse. Would you like me to equate all Christians with the Ku Klux Klan?

MEANING

You then presume, without explanation, that life with God has meaning, and life without him has no meaning. We create our own meaning and purpose. A “meaningful” life of praise and servitude to God really has no more meaning than a dog fetching a stick for his owner. The dog has a sense of purpose because he is doing is owner’s will. But what purpose is the owner serving? By throwing a stick, none. What purpose does God serve? His own and nothing higher. Like an atheist, he creates his own meaning and purpose (or rather humans invest him with such).

NON-CREATIONIST RELIGION

> What Catholics don’t allow is the metaphysics hiding behind the
> “Darwinists”: the idea that evolution is “blind” and that the ones
> who survive are the fittest

If God is all-powerful, why use guided evolution as a means to create us? It’s hideously inefficient and hard to control, and works perfectly well on its own without any guiding hand. The time-scales all match evolution based on random genetic changes. A guiding hand could have achieved the same goal much faster.

Science has provided a theory that supports all available evidence, which explains how complex life has evolved as a natural process. It predicts complex life-forms without any guiding hand. This is science. Your religious bias implores you to mesh these opposing ideas somehow, so you suggest that evolution was guided, throwing out the most beautiful and powerful part of the theory. You have no evidence to support you other than the word games you ridicule, such as “butterflies are beautiful, therefore there’s a God”.