Pope John Paul II begins his message by recalling the work of Pope Pius XII in his attempt to heal the conflict between the doctrine of faith and the development of scientific research. Pope John Paul II follows in the footsteps of his predecessor by engaging in a dialogue with the Academy of Sciences on the origins of life and evolution. Pope John Paul II recognizes that the conclusion of evolution appears to be a direct contradiction to the Apocalypse. To reach a solution, Pope John Paul II goes on to clarify the different functions of scientific and religious visions. The development of scientific research brings with it the ability to spark new investigations in an attempt to advance towards solutions that benefit everyone. the human community. If science proposes a true and justified belief, the Church should be forced to inspect and interpret the idea. This requires the Church to be critical of its own interpretations and conclusions in the face of new information. The church has the ability to reinterpret the Scriptures in a new light, and the church is able to discern a value judgment. Pope Pius XII maintains that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of faith. Because science and religion differ in their epistemology, they also differ in the kinds of questions they are qualified to answer. This distinction explains the need to be aware of the limitations in following a doctrine in order to prevent erroneous conclusions made outside of one's epistemological basis. In the case of evolution and the origin of life, the biblical account is challenged by the theory of evolution. Perfectly inspired but imperfectly written (and interpreted), the biblical account is believed to be true by religious people... halfway through the document... the alternative proposed by Dawkins is "a kind of liberal consensus on decency and natural justice" .This alternative changes over time and serves as a substitute for a legitimate source of moral beliefs through observation and demonstration in order to refute the Scriptures by providing a counterexample. This differs from Dawkins Obscurantism to the rescue, Dawkins has little substance to his reasoning, and all he seems to do is reject religion. His dismissal doesn't actually show any new information, he rejects religion because he likes it.