a recent article in the New Yorker discussing the Pope who in Mongolia revealed he love Teilhard's philosophy, and that this might be the tipping point for the coming synod

what is left out of that is Jesus.

...His written work, a sustained effort to reconcile Christian theology with the theory of Evolution, placed him in the vanguard of twentieth-century theology...

which only shows the problem of theologians who no longer believe all that stuff about Jesus. 

Teilhard’s notion that the earth would someday be surrounded by a complex information system powered by human consciousness has been seen as anticipating the Internet...

 and don't forget his ideas of evolving intelligence is similar to transhumanist ideas, of ubermensch who live forever via genetic engineering or via being linked to computers. 

But Teilhard’s most memorable concept is the notion that “tout ce qui monte, converge,” or “everything that rises must converge”that the various forces of natural evolution and human civilization are all ascending in a pattern of spiritual progress and will converge in a “Point Omega” at the end of time.

But he posited spontaneous evolution, not evolution via labs and CRISPR and computer implants that merge your brain with a computer.

And behind all of this shiny brave new world are the lessons of history.

one of the backstories of war and conquest going back to the ancient world is the logic of conquerers: that they are superior in some way and you peons are inferior, so obey us or die.

 the idea that some people are justified in conquering inferior races can be seen not just in European colonialism and in Rome's history, but in Chinese history, Japanese conquering Korea, the Mongul invasion of India, Genghis Khan, or Shaka Zulu among others.

So the fruits of Teilhard's evolution leads to what? A universe of love, or history repeating itself as the egotitical use his theory to insist science gave them the right to take over the world? and this time, the argument will be it's science so shut up.

(sound familiar?)

Then you have the ideas that Teilhard's ideas rconcile science and evolution with the faith: something was behind evolution and man will evolve to an omega point and voila paradise.

Theologically that has a lot of holes in it that no one wants to talk about.

 uh, Jesus?

Because at a time when Rome was proud to have conquered the world and imposed order and peace on it's minions (just ignore the slaves and massacres of course), God pulled one of his tricks and came to earth as a little baby born in a working class family in a remote area of the empire, and brought another idea: that the creator of the universe loves and cares for those who are least important in the eyes of the world.
that all men are created equal in God's eyes and that we serve him in caring for others....

which brings me back to the Pope and his fake synodality meeting that are prescripted so that everyone approves of his "reforms", which stress global warming, ecology, and sexual liberation for all, and the idea that the church should be an NGO cooperating with the global effort toward peace and a sustainable world, not a church dedicated to preaching Jesus.

This has geopolitical implications...

But the US press which hates conservatives prefers to frame the story in good liberals vs bad conservatives (who are of course white racists)...And I can only shake my head over their racist assumption that only white European and American opinions matter...(Just ignore all these African bishops, who actually believe in Jesus. As the Anglican church can tell you, they aren't exactly going to go along with the modern heresies).

which brings us to another problem with Teilhard: a willingness to tolrate scientific fraud in the Piltdown hoax to support his belief in evolution,  and his ability to ignore the racist assumptions behind the Piltdown hoax... 

Teilhard was involved in the Piltdown man hoax: maybe not behind it but very close, and he never opened his mouth to question it.

And the Piltdown man was pushed by British establishment that loved eugenics and evolution and used the Piltdown man to prove the Brits were the first true humans (i.e. inferior races evolved later and were inferior. see argument here).

Osborn studied the intelligence and physical attributes of modern humans to reveal their distinct racial and evolutionary journeys. He judged the black race to be the oldest and, by implication, the least evolved;

italics mine 

the white race had made the greatest advances. As with Dawn Man, environment did the heavy lifting in shaping the evolution of the races.....

Proof of inherent biological and evolutionary difference between Europeans, Africans, and Asians was of acute importance to Osborn because he believed strongly in keeping these group separate. ...

He co-founded the Galton Society in 1918 and American Eugenics Society in 1922, both dedicated to the advancement of the white race through eugenics. These groups sponsored “Fitter Family” contests, anti-miscegenation laws, and sterilization drives for unfit groups and “inferior” races.

Buck vs Bell, anyone? 

and other ideas morphed from this small seed: and alas every conservative site echoes this type of racism against immigration:

Osborn was also very politically active, passionately lobbying for the Immigration Act of 1924 that drastically limited immigration from Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe.

ah, but what about now, when we can make designer babies? Back then, "Nature had shaped each human race into an evolutionary form suited to its specific environment" was the idea, but in today's world we actually can do it ourselves.

CRISPR an;yone? 

A recent book about Teilhard work with the Peking man (not discovered by him) seems to say it was this discovery that gave him the idea of evolution of man. But his involvement with the Piltdown hoax suggests he already had that idea and merely wanted evidence to support his preconceived idea. Fast forward to Peking man.

A spectacular example of erectus was discovered in 1929 by Chardin and the David crew in China’s Zhoukoudian caves. There they unearthed the fossil dubbed Peking Man—“as typical a link between man and the apes as one could wish for,” the priest wrote exultantly. (This vital find, along with many other fossils, vanished in 1941 during the Japanese occupation of China.)

how convenient.

Smithsonian magazine discusses the PIltdown hoax

and this article notes discusses Teilhard's part in the hoax.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit paleontologist, priest, and philosopher. In the figures published in articles in 1943 and 1951, he attempted to draw a "plausible schematic reconstruction of the natural connections between fossil men" and a "phyletic composition of the human group".

I draw attention to Teilhard's reference to Eoanthropus ("Piltdown Man") in small print in his figure that was first printed in 1943. Most suspiciously, there is no reference to this (supposedly important) genus in the associated text, nor is there any reference whatsoever to "Piltdown Man" in the article published in 1951.

Even as early as January 1913, Teilhard may have been aware that "Piltdown Man" was a hoax or joke, artificially associating a human cranium with a modified orangutan mandible. A new suspect is Edgar Willett (rather than Charles Dawson). Teilhard may have been an advisory accomplice in a joke that went seriously wrong.

so it was a joke? so it's okay?

Science magazine has more about Teilhard's involement and continues to say it was a joke, because of course, one can not be forgiven to be involved in lying in science, but hey, a joke can be forgiven.

Dawson's calculated chicanery underscores why studying Piltdown Man is still important to modern science, De Groote says. Although such a brazen hoax is unlikely to occur again in physical anthropology because of the sophistication of modern analytical techniques, she says, there's still a danger of being too quick to accept interpretations that adhere to what scientists expect to find.. ...

sound familiar?  

"Piltdown Man sets a good example of the need for us to take a step back and look at the evidence for what it is," she says, "and not for whether it conforms to our preconceived ideas."

So the debate about Teilhard and the Piltdown hoax also could be discussed in the distortions about covid (or global warming) where scientists who go against the shaky science are silenced, not just by their collegues but in scientific journals... 

and like the Piltdown man hoax, this is not about science per se but about censoring ideas