Of course, one of the delicious ironies applicable here, is that the Roman Catholic Church has issued a public statement to the effect that it accepts the scientific findings of evolutionary biologists. It has no problem with the theory of evolution. For example, we have the address by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, dated 22nd October 1996:

In his encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. ... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favour of the theory.

The original address, presented in the French language, can be read here, courtesy of the Vatican website.

As a corollary, Ferguson's peddling of creationist canards, purportedly as a result of his asserted adherence to Catholic doctrine, actually makes him a heretic, and as a corollary, he is a candidate for excommunication. The 1983 Code of Canon Law specifically states that excommunication is automatically applied in the case of apostates, heretics and schismatics. From the English translation of the original Latin document we have:

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

The original Latin text reads as follows:

Can. 1364 — § 1. Apostata a fide, haereticus vel schismaticus in excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit, firmo praescripto can. 194, § 1, n. 2; clericus praeterea potest poenis, de quibus in can. 1336, § 1, nn. 1, 2 et 3, puniri.

Sources:

[1] Code of Canon Law, Book VI, Latin Original, hosted by the Vatican website (www.vatican.va)

[2] Code of Canon Law, Book VI, English translation, also hosted by the Vatican website

I suspect many here will enjoy this ...

@Ferguson: Evolution by natural selection is one more such theory. It is only a theory.

Only a theory? So are the theory of gravity and the germ theory. The word "theory" indicates that they have been demonstrated countless times to be valid and useful.

On the other hand, I've never heard of the "god theory of creation" or the "god theory of the afterlife". The word "myth" is more appropriate for these strange ideas.

OP's post probably belongs in the Book Review section.

And, we see yet again, the dumping of soiled intellectual nappies on the forum, courtesy of our supposed exiting supernaturalist who couldn't resist the temptation to come back and spread his cortical darrhoea all over the place.

First of all, the assertion that there actually exist such entities as "supernatural" entities, is the very assertion the rest of us have been waiting for 5,000 years to see supported with genuine evidence by supernaturalists. But instead, we are treated to yet more blind assertions, fatuous apologetic fabrications, and appeals to the intellectual evasion that is "faith".

This mendacious troll, sneers at science, a discipline that has provided evidence for its postulates by the supertanker load, whilst engaging in propagandising for mythology-based drivel that is not only totally bereft of proper evidential support, but frequently presents assertions that are known not merely to be wrong, but fatuous and absurd. Assertions such as that festering pile of donkey faeces in Genesis 30:37-39, which was utterly destroyed in the 19th century by an Austrian monk.

Plus, the anti-consensus objection is entirely valid, because, contrary to our troll's blatant lies on the subject, science has arrived at a consensus on a vast array of topics, though of course he's never bothered either to read the relevant scientific papers, or even pick up elementary textbooks on the subject. The mere fact that he regurgitated in past posts, such suppuratingly encephalitic rectal scrapings as "The Big Bang was an explosion", or "evolution is only a theory", provides the observational data pointing inexorably to this conclusion.

Apparently, our verminous little troll is incapable of understanding key elementary concepts, such as this one:

In science, a theory is an integrated explanation for a class of entities and interactions of interest, that has been tested experimentally to determine its accord with observational data, and found via such testing to be thus in accord.

As a corollary, a theory in science is about as far removed from "guesswork" as it's possible to be. Consequently, only idiots, the duplicitous, or those who are both, peddle the "only a theory" bullshit before a properly educated audience. Let's see if this lesson will be learned, shall we?

Furthermore, the idea that a body of text presented as purportedly constituting some fantastic brand of "privileged" knowledge, does not have to pay diligent attention to historical or scientific accuracy, is a diseased notion that only a supernaturalist terminally addled by mythology addiction could possibly espouse. The WHOLE FUCKING POINT HERE is that errors of this sort automatically place the asserted provenance of the requisite text in serious doubt. Yet, with breathtaking hypocrisy, he points to the fact that some problems addressed by science are hard problems, requiring decades of diligent research to solve, as purportedly constituting a valid reason for summary dismissal of the entire enterprise. The combination of mendacity and chutzpah endemic to this blatant double standard is wrought upon a truly cosmic scale. Likewise, the blatant hypocrisy involved in quoting failed early attempts at medicine, when science was still in its infancy, as a purported reason for summary dismissal of the entire enterprise, whilst ignoring the later manifest and stupendous successes once knowledge had advanced sufficiently, again constitutes a level of duplicity that only a supernaturalist could display while keeping a straight face.

As for the contents of The Lancet not being of interest to the rest of us, I assure you they are of interest to those who seek to have their illnesses cured.

Oh, and the notorious unreliability of "witness testimony" is one reason why courts of law in modern jurisdictions prefer evidence that is reliable, such as forensic evidence. For example, an individual accused of rape in a modern court of law, can easily counter purported "witness testimony" that he was responsible, by [1] presenting in court CCTV footage placing him several miles away from the crime scene at the time the crime was committed, and [2] DNA evidence that the sperm swabbed from the victim with a rape kit contained someone else's DNA. The moment he does this, a "not guilty" verdict immediately follows if the court is competent.

Returning to the "no consensus" objection, it's actually even worse for supernaturalism than this. Because supernaturalists have been unable to agree with each other on a global scale, which of the numerous mythologies they've invented is purportedly the "right" mythology, and adherents of a given mythology cannot agree with each other what that mythology is purportedly telling us. The anti-consilience in supernaturalism is rampant, and should be seen by everyone who paid attention in class, as merely one of many sound reasons to dismiss the entire supernaturalist circus. The presence of fatuous and absurd assertions in mythologies is another.

I'll also address here the hypocrisy endemic to the "science cannot address this matter" assertion, by noting how supernaturalists assert that their imaginary magic men are observable when it's apologetically convenient (e.g., peddling assertions about purported "miracles"), but when the rest of us ask why this entity ceases to be reliably and repeatably observable outside of apologetic convenience, the "science cannot answer this" and "category error" supernaturalist evasions are brought out on castors. In short, the supernaturalist position consists of "My magic man is observable, but only when I want him to be".

As for the assertion that the sad, pathetic mythologies of the Middle East achieved social and political hegemony as a result of the merits of their contents, this assertion is risible in the extreme to anyone who paid attention in history class. What these mythologies and their adherents manifestly and observably brought to the table, was ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine. The Old Testament is littered with gleeful descriptions of bloody Lebensraum wars pursued in the past by the raving, psychotic followers thereof, along with sick, twisted revelling in the taking of underage girls as sex slaves after butchering their parents in those same wars. Later, history provides us with a mass of observational evidence, to the effect that the Catholic Church pursued hegemony for its doctrine through repression and military conquest. The sordid history of this organisation includes the Crusades and the Inquisition, during which any deviance from conformity to doctrine was ruthlessly extirpated. The history of Christianity isn't alone in this matter, of course: Islam has its fair share of bloody wars and enforced conformity to doctrine, of which the activities of the Ottoman Empire was merely one example - the conquest of the Balkans and the sacking of Constantinople being merely two of the more significant events arising therefrom.

Given the vast body of data available in this matter, the idea that the requisite religions enjoyed their successes on any proper discoursive basis, is roundly refuted. Indeed, the persistence thereof is merely a testimony to the success of the brutal methods employed in the past over the span of a millennium, and has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of the contents of the requisite mythologies. Undoing the damage wrought by said repression and resort to military might, will probably take a similar time span, and as a corollary, any development accelerating the return to the trajectory of progress that was snuffed out by the theocratic Dark Age, can only be welcomed by people with functioning neurons.

Indeed, we also have, through that body of evidence, evidence in turn that theocracy is irredeemably and virulently malign, which is one of the reasons that the period of European theocracy is referred to as the Dark Ages, and the ending thereof as the Enlightenment. Your twisted propagandising for a doctrine that brought in its wake religious cleansing and its horrors, is duly noted, and merely provides more reason to regard you and your ilk as a threat to any properly constituted, decent, humane civil society.

Finally, the idea that religion is purportedly "superior" to science, because it takes little effort and little intellect to swallow its assertions, is again farcical in the extreme. Only a terminally addled supernaturalist could possibly entertain the notion, that a facile mythology-based doctrine is "superior" to a diligent enterprise that has reliably produced genuine substantive knowledge by the supertanker load. Indeed, that's one of the concepts our troll manifestly doesn't understand - namely, that the definition of "simple" in the world of science is as far removed from facile as it's possible to be. In the world of science, simple theories are those theories involving the smallest number of free parameters and a priori assumptions. The aim being to have zero free parameters and a priori assumptions in the final product. However, achieving this aim requires diligent effort, something completely alien to our resident troll.

Having addressed the requisite drivel, even though it is too stupid, and required me to humble myself to address, I'll now part with a warning to our troll.

Bring ANY more canards, misrepresentations or outright duplicity here, and said output will be pounded to a bloody pulp. What's more, several of us here will enjoy using whatever discoursive ordnance happens to be at hand, in order to participate in this. Lie and dissemble here as you have done so far, and your output will be given the treatment it deserves. For several persons here, pounding supernaturalist bullshit is regarded as a blood sport to be pursued with vigour and enthusiasm, and thus far, all you've succeeded in doing with your bizarre, banal, and at times pestilential and bubotic ravings, is provide the requisite persons with a LOT of fresh meat. Several here will enjoy subjecting your miasmatic garbage to the same treatment, as your ideological ancestors subjected their victims to. Those of us who pay proper respect to the rules of discourse live by the maxim "bad ideas exist to be destroyed, before those ideas destroy good people".

@ferguson1951: RE: THE FERGIE FALLACY.
A false comparrison; when comparing the writings of science texts whose theories are validated by eons of experimentation, predictive capabilities, and repetition to anything in the bible is just moronic.

Please demonstrate that a man can live for three days in a giant fish.
Please demonstrate that anyone can be healed through faith in a deity.
Please demonstrate the soul.
Please demonstrate anything beyond the material world.
Please demonstrate the efficacy of prayer.
Please demonstrate the existence then divinity of Jesus.
Please demonstrate the existence and then magical powers of your god thing.
Do any of this as clearly as a science text book and I will convert to theism tomorrow.
And on and on and on and on........