Talk:Evolution and the Catholic Church/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Now that the storm has abated a bit

It is fairly clear to me that we have a problem with references and organization in this article. All that wasted energy....ugh...--Filll 15:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry I missed this debate but it seems like the whole argument missed the boat completely. There are millions of Catholics who, quite falsely believe the Church disagrees with the Theory of Evolution. I have had young men and women who have left the Church tell me that this is one of their reasons.

It is one example among many where the majority of Catholics seem to understand no difference between Catholic Teaching and the by-definition, contradictory, position of "Bible-literalist" "evangelical" Protestants.

The only important question is whether the Church opposes or disagrees with the scientific answers the the scientific question of evolution. All of the evidence shows that it does not, and has not since Humani Generis. The Church has firmly stated that thses scientific questions should be handled by scientists. Therefore, while other Christian denominations stamp their feet and demand that science cannot be allowed to contradict the literal interpretation of the Bible, the Catholic Church firmly does not oppose the teaching of real science by real scientists rahter than fake scientists that swear on the Bible never to disagree with it.

The Church does feel that the greater question of whether or not God is the real force behind all of these events is not a scientific question.Gdewar 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Church claims she believes in evolution but on closer inspection she does not. The Church believes in theistic evolution and does not accept evolution as it is understood scientifically. (Runwiththewind 23:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
The scientific method includes bracketing the God question. It does not answer the God question. So to say that the Church "does not accept evolution as it is understood scientifically" is a distortion--the Church does not think that science has all the answers, and the Church's methodology is not a natural scientific methodology. However, there is no Catholic teaching proscribing belief that some process of random variation and natural selection has a genetic impact. I think Gdewar's framing of the question is closer to the Catholic position than Runwiththewind's.The.helping.people.tick 06:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Eh, Runwiththewind obviously fails to understand that theistic evolution is fully compatible with evolution as it is understood scientifically, and that science inherently has no bearing on matters of faith or the supernatural: see naturalism (philosophy). Gdewar's statement is basically correct, though, as the source discussed above shows, the catechism is actually quite positive about the scientific view of mankind's origins, and most other Christian denominations also support theistic evolution. Opposition comes from fundamentalists with ideas of empirical theology, largely in some evangelical denominations though also amongst some adherents to mainstream religions. ... dave souza, talk 07:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The Catholic Church does not accept natural selection (which is not random as is it often misunderstood) as the mechanism of evolution, has rejected this scientific explanation for evolution and developed the theistic evolution hypothesis where a supernatural diety guides the evolution of organisms by a mechanism which remains unknown. The Church does not accept the theory of evolution. It accepts the theistic evolution hypothesis. (Runwiththewind 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

<undent>I believe if you do some checking, you will find you are mistaken.--Filll 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A typical Catholic understanding of primary and secondary causality allows for natural selection as a mechanism -- I don't know of anywhere that the Church rejects the possibility of natural selection as a mechanism. The way I understand it, the Catholic account is: God created the universe (primary causality), and when we do natural science, we discover how God created the universe. I don't see any problems for a Catholic scientist who subscribes to evolution as an explanation for how God created things. You're going to have to cite some sources, Runwiththewind, if you want to maintain that the Catholic Church rejects the mechanism of natural selection. I don't think the position I describe is mandated for Catholics, but it is certainly an option. The.helping.people.tick 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not a question about cosmology. This is about biology. Natural selection directly implies that complex organisms, such as humans, evolved naturally and are still evolving. The Church holds that God created man to his own image. See #355 of the Catechism. I fail to see how natural selection can be unified with theistic evolution when the main critic of theistic evolution is natural selection. (Runwiththewind 11:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC))
See #283 of the Catechism. "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man." Your failure to understand this is not relevant here: what we require, and have, is a reliable secondary source which interprets this issue. .. dave souza, talk 11:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What #283 says has been interpreted by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn to mean that God guided the process. Natural selection isn't guided. There is no such objective in the mechanism of natural selection. Where is the evidence for this? Cardinal Christoph Schönborn has said that Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.[[1]]. (Runwiththewind 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

It all depends on the meaning of "guided" doesn't it? Can the existence of the natural laws of the universe constitute "guiding"? Does "guiding" require direct personal intervention and assorted miracles at opportune times?

First, the evidence is strong that Schönborn did not write that statement, but just signed his name to something written for him by the Discovery Institute and/or its public relations company. The Cardinal admitted that the letter did not have Vatican approval [2]. Also, the Church appears to have distanced itself from that letter afterwords. It really just looks like a publicity stunt, bought and paid for.

My admittedly limited understanding of the Church's position is that they do not dispute the physical scientific process of evolution at all, but assert that the soul of man has to come from God (see creatianism). This is not at all in dispute with evolution.

Also, if your definition of "theistic evolution" is correct, the large group of scientists and US citizens that subscribe to what they think is theistic evolution (myself included), do not in fact subscribe to theistic evolution at all. The teeny tiny minority of religious zealots that desperately cling to biblical literalism do not want to realize that is what they are; an insignificantly tiny minority that just likes to scream a lot. They frantically want to read the tea leaves and split hairs to try to claim they are part of a much larger group, therefore have the imprimatur of all of Christendom to boldly make sweeping statements and attack the forces of darkness (read; whoever they decide is an enemy at the moment, such as scientists, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, liberals, homosexuals, Blacks, Democrats, abortion doctors, nonbelievers, and other assorted "scum"). This is pure nonsense, frankly. There is no evidence whatsoever that this very vocal very obnoxious group is growing with time; they just continue to throw petulant tantrums that everyone else rolls their eyes at, like a crazy uncle that should be hidden from polite society.--Filll 13:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of Schoenborn's point is that science cannot determine whether natural selection is guided or not -- that is not a scientific question, but a philosophical or theological question. If I understand his critique of neo-Darwinism, it is that neo-Darwinism science (e.g., natural selection is the mechanism that best explains the data) attempts to answer questions outside of its competence, and becomes neo-Darwinian philosophy (e.g., there is no guide to the process of natural selection), at which point the Church can and does critique it. The.helping.people.tick 14:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
See Christoph Cardinal Schönborn and this. He appears to reject Deism and says "I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained.", giving examples of atheist extrapolations from natural selection as violating the borders. Shock horror, Catholic Cardinal opposes atheism. "I am thankful for the immense work of the natural sciences. Their furthering of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do not restrict faith in the creation; they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and in how wisely and wonderfully He has made all things." Nothing there about changing science to accept supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. .... dave souza, talk 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design template

I disagree with adding template:Intelligent Design to this article. The article is on the Catholic Church's relationship to evolution, and by extension, to creationism. ID is only mentioned as the latest 'repackaging' of creationism (which has been in existence for only a small fraction of the time period that the article covers). HrafnTalkStalk 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I encountered this article as part of the series on ID, but this template was not included so I added it (I must admit I didn't read the article). The Church's reaction to ID seems significant (else it shouldn't be included in the template), but there doesn't seem to be a seperate article on that (cfr. Judaism and evolution vs. Jewish reactions to intelligent design). Maybe a lazy and not-so-clean compromise is to include the template in the relevant part of the article? Less importantly, there's only one picture in the rather long text, at least the template would provide some extra colour. -- StevenDH (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a 'Creationism' template would be more appropriate than the ID one, as the main theme of the Catholic position is one of opposition to Creationism (and thus by extension ID). HrafnTalkStalk 22:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair, but I can't seem to find a mention of this article in Template:Creationism2. I'll propose inclusion on the corresponding talk page. And concerning ID, maybe we could make a (possibly short) article about "ID & the Church" for the series on ID, and link to that from this article? -- StevenDH (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The templates' contents cover what is important to the topics of Creationism & ID. What templates we include in the article should reflect what topic(s) are important to 'Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church' -- and there's absolutely no reason why they should mirror each other. Catholics are a significant subset of ID's main target audience -- conservative American Judeo-Christians. ID however is of importance to the Catholic Church only in context of its wider consideration of the theology of Creation vs Creationism. Thus, even the Creationism template is a rather poor fit, though I can't find a better one (the only general Catholicism template is an ugly footer). HrafnTalkStalk 14:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


I personally do not think that the intelligent design template belongs on this article. Intelligent design is just a specific form of creationism, and if anything, the Church's relation to creationism is more relevant (although I am not sure I want a creationism template here either necessarily). What makes this even more amusing is that the main groups promoting creationism and intelligent design by and large reject Catholicism as part of Christianity and Catholics as Christians, even equating them to atheists or worse. --Filll (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So there are two issues:
  • The inclusion of a template here, which proves unpopular. I added the template more for symmetry than the conviction that it truely belongs here. A few articles from the template will probably be of interest for some readers of this article, maybe a 'see also' section could be useful for that (and other articles) insofar as deemed interesting by the editors of this article.
  • Secondly the inclusion of this article in the templates mentioned. Originally I thought a (small) article about "ID & the Church" would be of interest for the ID template, and this article would fit nicely in the series on Creationism. However my enthousiasm is somewhat curbed by Filll's remarks. I live in a (formerly...) Catholic region (Belgium) where Christianity and Catholicism are (still) often viewed as the same, so I wasn't really aware of that, and it means a potential lack of relevance for "ID and the Church" to a series about ID. But maybe this situation could partially explain differences between eg. Belgian and Dutch education about evolution...
Greetings, StevenDH (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What I think this article needs, more than an ID or Creationism template, or the ugly Catholicism one, is a template on 'Sceince & Religion', unfortunately one doesn't seem to exist as yet. Given the choices that currently exist, I think noneof them is the best option in the mean time. HrafnTalkStalk 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Caption

It would be nice if this figure caption [3] made sense. --Filll (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be even nicer if the image in question actually had any informational/illustrative value. HrafnTalkStalk 21:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I also was worried that the pic was misplaced, but I thought, actually, it is. It is important, I think, to make clear that Creationism is not a part of Catholic doctrine, especially since it once was, and since it is often misunderstood; I know many--including top-notch professional philosophers--who have never heard that the Catholic Church is not officially Creationist. And, as the comment from the other editor said in the log, the Catholic doctrine is of the creation of everything, without any interest in the pseudo-sciencific theories that Creationism is mostly about. Tb (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Creation is a purely theological position. Creationism wanders well over the boundary into pseudoscience. However some senior members in the Catholic church do at times give the impression of being at least a little confused and/or expansive on where the boundary between the two lies. HrafnTalkStalk 21:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting source for this being a common misconception in some parts.[4] . . dave souza, talk 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Creationism and Traditionalist Catholicism

I take it that most/all the creationist elements within the Catholic Church are associated with Traditionalist Catholicism? If so, it'd probably be a good idea if we can come up with some sources that delineate this relationship in general terms, rather than simply listing the patchwork of obscure creationist groups we have currently in 'Unofficial catholic organizations'. HrafnTalkStalk 09:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Overuse of primary sources

This article suffers badly from an overuse of primary Church sources, and an underuse of academic secondary sources in this complex area. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Harrison references

Johnbod objects on references simply to the article itself. In their place he prefers the following:

Irrelevant WP:SYNTH
  • "Harrison, who is himself hostile to Darwinism (see his last paragraph), is rather against this "widespread popular perception" - see Conclusion section 1"[5] Harrison's hostility to Darwinism is (i) [improper synthesis & (ii) irrelevant to the issue at hand. More problematic is the fact that Harrison is in fact contradicting this "widespread popular perception" -- which is presented in the article body as fact.
Further refs on this to follow in due course. Harrison makes his position very clear. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Redundant
  • "Quoted in Harrison"[6] -- straight after a quote.
Easily found without additional information
  • That "no high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to sub-human species"[7] can be found in the conclusion that is titled 'Regarding Sub-Human Evolution'.
If reading an 8,000 word article nearly to the end is "easy", then yes! Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sufficiently vague as to be no better than simply citing the article as a whole
  • "Harrison, especially Conclusion sections."[8]

I see nothing here to give reason for having anything beyond a single, named, reference for all of these, to the Harrison article as a whole. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Copied from his talk .... :I would disagree. When referencing an article, it is standard practice to cite simply the article as a whole. I would suggest that if there is difficulty finding the information referred to in a 7,000-8,000 word article, this would probably mean that an unhealthy amount of WP:SYNTH was involved. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't remember hearing a more ridiculous suggestion frankly! Why? Obviously if no internal reference is given to such an article, then the whole thing has to be read until the point is encountered. In an article like Harrison's, with conclusions at the end, the initial statement of a point may not be the only or most concise one. It is not "standard practice to cite simply the article as a whole" at all - where do you get this idea? In a printed article, page numbers are naturally expected, and in online ones, whatever section refs etc that are available. Why precise references, and quotations such as you removed, should "probably mean" WP:SYNTH is beyond me. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hrafn does not mention that he removed several other more porecise refs. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod is right. From WP:V (emphasis mine): "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." We go with what will make the cited text easier to find, not what is easier to add to Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/c 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Article Name change

As the lead article has been changed to Catholic Church, this article should also drop "Roman" as this topic refers not to the teaching of the Western Rite Church but to the entire Catholic Church.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On a different issue but still related to changing the name of this article, I would like to renew my proposal (from two and a half years ago) to change the title to Catholic Church and evolution. This would conform with an emerging series of articles that include, among others, Catholic Church and ecumenism, Catholic Church and slavery, Catholic Church and capital punishment. --Richard (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No objection. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The latest on evolution from the Vatican

The latest on evolution from the Vatican: Plenary Session on "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life" (31 October - 4 November 2008)[9] Part VI (pdf) conclusion pp. 209–212 includes "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories. They rejected as objectively untenable the so-called ‘creationist’ view based on a literal interpretation of the biblical account of Genesis, a view not to be confused with the belief, legitimately held by many,in a creator God...... Many discussions were devoted to the origin and evolution of life. It was generally admitted that all known living beings, including humans, descend from a single ancestral form of life that appeared on Earth several billion years ago. How this form originated is not known but is believed by a majority of experts to have involved special chemical reactions that were rendered possible, perhaps even imposed, by the physical-chemical conditions under which they took place..... There was also wide agreement on the central role played in biological evolution by Darwinian natural selection, defined as a natural process that obligatorily brings out, from a collection of accidentally produced genetic variants, those most apt to survive and, especially, to produce progeny under prevailing conditions. A number of contributions did, however, underline the need to refine some of the conceptual bases of this theory in the light of recent findings. ..... On the other hand, no one, at least among the scientists, defended the recently advocated theory of ‘intelligent design‘,according to which certain evolutionary events could not have taken place without the intervention of some higher influence, of which no evidence can be found in nature. Several of the arguments cited in support of this theory were shown to ignore recent findings. In particular, the theory was rejected as intrinsically non-scientific, resting, as it does, on the a priori contention, neither provable nor disprovable, that certain events cannot be naturally explained. These views did not satisfy some theologians who stressed the role of design in creation, an affirmation which, in turn, raised the questions of where and how design is manifested. The issue was not settled during the meeting." . . . dave souza, talk 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Early reaction edits

I was in the process of (what I thought was) rewriting much of the early reaction section in summary style, when they were reverted in good faith. While certainly some of the stylistic choices I made are open for discussion, some other edits, in particular the one about catholic schools, seemed pretty obvious and noncontroversial improvements. Per WP:BRD, I would like some feedback as to what some of the issues are seen to be with my efforts. Again, my goal is summary style, with more declarative sentences and less wordiness and ancillary detail. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary style is intended for long articles that have subsidiary articles dealing in detail with particular aspects. This is not a long article and has few subsidiary articles. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Theistic evolution

Please refer to this discussion over at Talk:Catholic Church and science. The question is: Why does Evolution and the Catholic Church assert that Catholic doctrine is a non-specific form of Theistic evolution while Theistic evolution asserts that Catholic schools do not teach theistic evolution? --Richard S (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think there is a contradiction here? Certainly in the Uk, Catholic schools teach Biology just like any other school, but may include the "theistic" bit in religious education lessons, though I wonder how many do. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Leo XIII and Arcanum

I do not believed I've ever edited any Wikipedia article before, so excuse me for my lack of knowledge of how things work in Wikipedia, but I was curious on why an INFALLIBLE statement by Pope Leo XIII would not be a central part of this discussion. Although many Catholics do not know or believe what the Church teaches, it is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church that men could have evolved.

There are several sermons by Catholic priests on www.audiosancto.org that address evolution. One of them can be found here: http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20081214-Unless-We-Believe-in-Scripture-We-Can-Neither-Be-Christians-Nor-Be-Saved.html

It seems that those who are okay with evolution of men are also the same heretics who believe in Modernistic Liberalism or Indifferentism.

I appreciate the feedback of those who help edit this entry.


MB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaven (talk • contribs) 21:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you one - if it is indeed an infallible pronouncement, why does no subsequent Vatican statement ever refer to it? Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The syllabus of errors, error 7. If evolution be true, the genesis account is a myth. This is condemned by Pius IX.

2. Sermon: Unless We Believe in Scripture We Can Neither Be Christians Nor Be Saved; http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20081214-Unless-We-Believe-in-Scripture-We-Can-Neither-Be-Christians-Nor-Be-Saved.html

3. "Formal papal condemnations are considered infallible and so I do think Arcanum does fall under that."

I believe that this is sufficient evidence that the Catholic Church is opposed histories that disagree with the Genesis account. So it seems that the article should either confirm this or be divided into two sections: Evidence that the Catholic Church Opposes Evolution and Evidence that the Catholic Church does not oppose Evolution. -MB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaven (talk • contribs) 02:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS #20 about 1/2 way through it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaven (talk • contribs) 03:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

1) The new tag is for a section, not the whole article. I will remove it although not object if you put it back where you see it belonging if you explain better why. 2) Even if evolution is false, the Genesis account is easily seen to be a myth, in the Joseph Campbell sense, (and among other things) so there is no problem. 3) Section 20 of that document simply says in no uncertain terms that scripture is divinely inspired and protected from error. Well yeah..., but I see no problem. Where is it then?
To my knowledge the Church has never made any dogmatic assertions against evolution, properly understood. It has made them against it improperly understood (meant: as a theology), as well as criticized various expositional efforts of evolutionary theory which were, in its view, suspect in methodology so as to be improperly theological in discipline. There is no need for major restructuring, although of course the article is not above copyediting. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding over infallibilty, not everything the Pope says is infallible. Papal infallibility proclamations are very rare although personally as a Catholic I don't believe in Papal infallibility and I don't think I personally know more than a handful of people who do. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility 94.197.96.172 (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Major Reorganization

I'd like to reorganize the article (not rewrite the information).

1. Leo XIII & Pius X should have their own sections.
2. Post-Vatican II should be removed and continue to list popes.
3. Missing popes should be listed so we can add data to their sections -- and all popes' sections pertain to development under their papacy. Next to the pope's name, we can have the dates that he was pontiff from, EG John Paul II, 1978 - 2005
4. Add a section on Catholic Theology and Evolution. Under this section, Polygenism & monogenism can have their sub-listings as well as anything others might add. Data from Catholic teaching and evolution can be moved here and that section deleted.

Does anyone have any problems with proposed changes? (unsigned comment by Beaven.)

The first three suggestions seem to be using pontificates as a chronological structuring units. I am not wed to it but as some pontificates are already mentioned, being consistent seems fine. I would reserve the right to pool sparsely sourced pontificates together, if it comes to that. So give it a shot.
The fourth heading seems superfluous: just include the progressions of the various issues in their correct pontifical bucket as set up by the first three suggesions. There is no need to restrict the content within each section to just that generated by the popes themselves. I would recommend agaist that.
Thanks for bringing such significant changes to the talk page first. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. So shall we just take the debate on polygenism and divide it up according to the historical development under the different pontiffs? I think we can keep the Catholic schools section seperate. Anything else you want to touch on before I make the change? Anyone else have feedback? (User talk:Beaven).
It doesn't sound attractive to me. By no means all Popes had anything to say on evolution - in fact most avoided comment as far as possible, and the degree to which such pronouncements as were made were personal to the Popes concerned is very doubtful, so I think moving to increase the "by papacy" organization is a move in the wrong direction, implying that attitudes changed with the Popes, which the article does not currently support at all. It would be good to have a concise statement of the current position nearer the top of the article, if such a thing can be found. Unless the 3 lines currently devoted to Pius X's reign are significantly expanded, I see no reason to split him off from Leo. "Post-Vatican II" can go - 1950 is the big break here. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've updated by pulling post-V2 out and moving the section on polygenism (it didn't look right where it was after post-V2 was pulled). I also edited and added to polygenism. And I believe most will appreciate that it doesn't have the huge block quotes anymore but does still cover the content that was in the big quotes. After this settles, I think I might work more on the earlier times and how they impact the Church & Evolution. -Beaven 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial Position

"Today, the Church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution". I have a problem with this statement. If the Catholic Church teaches something, then it is official. If it is unofficial, then it isn't Church teaching. Would the other users rather see this reworded or struck altogether? It is not a necessary statement. -Beaven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaven (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That by no means allows for the subtlety of the Church's position, as the later stretches of the article show. In fact there has not been a full "official position" on the matter ever. Johnbod (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Geology

"a literal reading of the Book of Genesis,[citation needed] which had long been undermined by developments in geology and other fields". This is not comment on the Catholic Church and her relation to geology nor her perspective on scientific information relating to geology impacting a literal reading of Genesis. Unless shown how it is relevant, it should be deleted. Otherwise it seems to be a statement trying to disprove creationism, not how the Catholic Church relates to evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.16.194 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant because it demonstrates the CC's lack of conflict with a major scientific discovery underlying evolution (that the Earth, and life, had existed for millions of years -- giving sufficient time for evolution to occur). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there has been a POV campaign to remove this referenced point (not quoted correctly here) Johnbod (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A point about the Michelangelo painting.

In it, Adam has a navel, which suggests that he was born of a woman, rather than created. This greatly displeased the Michelangelo's Pope du jour (Julius), who did not accept the artist's explanation that Adam was created with a navel. Not sure whether this is at all relevant to the article, but since the image is there, I think that this is an interesting related tidbit worthy of inclusion (my POV) Old_Wombat (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Some scientists"

In response to this ludicrous edit summary I challenge CalebPM to present any credible geologist from the last couple of centuries or so who has supported timeframes that do not conflict with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Whether the wording is "science" or "the overwhelming scientific consensus, the fact remains that far, far, FAR more than "some" geologists take this position. CalebPM appears to be attempting to give equal validity to Young Earth creationism. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So going back to 1811? Are you sure? Not my area, but I imagine there were such figures, maybe the majority in 1811. CalebPM is I think talking about the early 19th century, you only only about the 20th/21st. A little edit should clarify the context; I don't like this phrasing of "science" doing things. I will revert in the meantime. Like all major changes in thinking, it was surely initially done by "some", not all, geologists. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure as to the exact timeframe of the rejection of a thousands-of-year/literal-Genesis-compatable timeframe -- but it was certainly in place by the 1830s, with the publication of Principles of Geology (it would have started in the late 18th, with the work of James Hutton) -- hence my "last couple of centuries or so". I am most certainly talking about the majority of the 19th century. Yes, any new idea is adopted by "some" first -- but that does not preclude the possibility that it has been accepted by far larger numbers for most of its existence (would you likewise describe Christianity as only being accepted by "some" people, on the basis that, if the Bible is to be believed, it was only initially accepted by twelve?) -- and that the "some" is therefore often highly misleading. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I would also point out that you 'reverted' in favour of the new, no-consensus-yet version. I have replaced this inaccurate and misleading material with an expanded, explicitly-sourced explanation of how and why the idea was rejected by the science of geology. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Benedict section

The opening paragraph in this section isn't relating the words of the Pope, but rather someone deemed close to the Pope. That is not appropriate, these comments should be expressed after the viewpoints of the Pope are expressed. It is not appropriate for the words of others to precede those of the Pope in a section representing his views.137.111.13.167 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

the "official" position of the Catholic Church on evolution

the article quotes an atheist, Eugenie Scott, regarding what she thinks the official stance of the church is on the theory of evolution. Eugenie Scott is not a qualified spokesman for the Catholic Church. the remark should be stricken from the article. Wikipedians totally misunderstand how the Catholic church stands on this issue, they even misunderstand what constitutes an official position. The church publishes documents such as the catechism which do constitute an official position. The church has not adopted an official position on this issue. the church has maintained its doctrine on creation. Quote the catechism not the New York Times or some atheist opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presaint (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Relying on Eugenie Scott's word regarding what constitutes an official stance of the catholic church is the equivalent of relying on the word of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a description of modern Judaism. The use of Eugenie Scott in this capacity is proof that Wikipedia is not a reputable information source. period. Presaint (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You might find the discussion not long ago at Talk:Theistic_evolution#Roman_Catholic_views useful background, where the use of Scott is discussed. One can't just ignore over 60 years of encyclicals and other high-level church pronouncements, though it seems you would like to. Scott's quote, now firmly attributed, is short and quotable, while the Catechism is by design neither. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It is you who are ignoring the encyclicals and high level rulings. I have read Humani Generis at least a dozen times I doubt that you have read it even once. I have read the section of the catechism "Catechesis on CREATION" - I am certain you have not. This topic is controversial. There are two sides to the issue but this article carefully selects items that support one side and censors all other items in order to twist the truth. For example, Humani Generis is an Encyclical "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine" according to its subtitle - but you won't print that here. In this encyclical Pope Pius XII calls evolution a false opinion and requires that no Catholic discussing the issue treat it as proven fact and he requires that discussions always include both the PROS and CONS on the issue and he requires Catholics to hold to Church doctrine regarding Adam and Eve and original sin - but you won't print that here. The Catholic church has never ceased to teach that all who have ever lived have descended from Adam and Eve our first parents - it says so in the Catechism and dogmatic rulings such as the Pontifical Biblical commission of 1909 - but you won't print that here. Pope Benedict XVI, in 1989 when Cardinal Ratzinger said, the main reason for the crisis of faith is the almost complete disappearance, in theology, of the doctrine of creation - but you won't print that here. You won't quote the church catechism and you won't quote sections of encyclicals or sermons or books from Catholics that do not support the agenda of this page. This page is not honest reporting of the topic it is an agenda oriented dissertation. You print the rediculous Lamarck piece as so called contribution of the Catholic church yet you won't print that Bruce Chapman, the director and founder of the Discovery Institute is a Roman Catholic, Dr Michael Behe is a Roman Catholic, Dr. Ann Gauger is a Roman Catholic - why? because those facts do not support the agenda, the rediculous agenda of this page. Presaint (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Behe was mentioned, at the bottom where he belongs, & I've added Chapman, & Gauger could go in if she gets an article. But these are figures of purely American interest, as part of a fringe movement. I'd never heard of any of them, afaik. Please remember the article is not Catholic doctrine of Creation - though that might be written. Several things you say aren't mentioned in fact are, but I'll look at the coverage again - the article is not by "me", as you seem to think, but many authors over many years. The Catechism is certainly quoted for example, as well as summaries of sections not quoted. I think you know which way the "controversy" in the Church, such as it is, has been going for the last few decades, and you should remember that WP (like the CC) takes a global not an American perspective - in most of the world the discussion in fact has little heat. I added that the Church does not require holding any particular view of evolution, and that aspect perhaps needs expanding. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to note that Dr Behe only rejects evolution in the sense in which he defines it in Darwin's Black Box: "a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed by entirely natural means." (Emphasis added) He goes on to clarify:
For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism—natural selection working on variation—might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.
Further, he specifically affirmed that humans and apes share a common ancestor in e-mails to Whitney Gray. - Cal Engime (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I think the brief mention in the article, which doesn't attempt to explain his position, is ok as it is, & on a quick look his biography also. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I address you specifically, Johnbod, as you passed immediate judgement on my proposed edits a mere 7 minutes after they were posted. There is so much that needs correcting on this page it is now apparent that the task would be better addressed one sentence at a time starting from the beginning. I will for now let the first sentence slide, even though I disagree with the terminology "attitude of the church" and I disagree with the concept that it is the church - not scientific research, that is refining its position. The church has dogma on this and dogma does not change and has not changed. As for which way the controversy has been going for the last few decades, that is a large part of why I am paying attention to this page. Pages like this a large part of the problem we currently see inside the church on this topic. I will begin development of a revision to the second sentence in that the church did in fact publish a decree on this very subject just 10 years after Darwin's Origin of Species. Vatican 1 addressed evolution and established the Canons of God the Creator of All Things. As I said, I will develop a revision to the false statement in sentence 2 and propose the edit, with proper reference material as my personal time permits. Thank you for your attention. Presaint (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the article can be improved in many ways. I suggest you post any drafts here for discussion first. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Catholic Church and evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Catholic Church and evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic Church and evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Official Position of the Church

In the intro it states 'Today, the Church supports theistic evolution(ism), also known as evolutionary creation' this is not true, also this information comes from a non-Catholic source so it might not accurately say what the Catholic Church teaches. And it contradicts a later part of the article 'The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution'.

also under Pope John Paul II 'In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body'but all he said it was more than a hypothesis. he didnt 'update' the Church's position. We need to change theseIlikerabbits! (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. The church's position is still somewhat equivocal, but since the teaching of evolution is mandated by them in Catholic schools in most countries, and official statements for several decades have been supportive, or at least permissive, I think "support" is ok, and supported by the reference. That the church takes no doctrinal position is a different matter. The 1996 statement was also seen as a shift by RS. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It may have been a shift accordimg to some but it was nothing further than Pope Pius XII so we should clarify that. I think we should change the word official though to something else. Ilikerabbits! (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

References for that? Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II's statement evolution is more than a hypothesis doesnt really chnage what Pope Pius XII said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikerabbits! (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"allowed belief in evolution": evolution it not a belief (i.e. see evidence of common descent, evolution as fact and theory, scientific theory, vs hypothesis and religious belief). On the other hand, theistic evolution is. The article has "or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God" (which is theistic evolution). Technically, evolution denial is no longer enforced like it used to be. Even more generally, largely Catholic countries are often rather secular today. The church, instead of completely dying there, had to evolve and become more tolerant. The people still like to affirm a certain traditional affiliation but Catholic priests are no longer running their community.
This is very similar to with the Birth Control topics (where we previously met). If I undersand, you want to make clear that general Catholic practice may conflict with official Catholic doctrine and that conflicts also exist between the statements of various Catholic authorities? This may often be right. This of course also differs from the ability of the Church to enforce those today on their members. A number of Catholics no longer even accept the pope's authority and will dislike or love the pope depending on his popularity and actions. Other Catholics integrate previous traditional beliefs, or new age ones, into their religious lives (syncretism).
All that makes it a complex topic. But since this is all rather obvious, I think that it may be possible to find sources for all of the above. But we must also take care that the final synthesis isn't mine (this post) or yours, but that of a reliable secondary source.
If you believe that most of my post was uncalled for, I apologise, but I thought that it was warranted considering our previous interactions. It is important to understand that Wikipedia is not a preaching platform (WP:SOAPBOXING). We must report on what reliable sources say, ideally secondary ones (yes, a "non-Catholic source"). If I misconstrued your objectives, I will be glad to learn otherwise. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 07:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: To avoid any confusion, for talk archives, my above quote: "allowed belief in evolution" was from one of the above posts from Ilikerabbits!, but the post has since been modified by its author to redact it ([10][11]). —PaleoNeonate - 18:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Anything someone believes is a "belief" by definition. Since the vast majority of people today who believe in evolution could not give a coherent explanation of the scientific evidence, it is for them just as much a belief derived from taking the word of authorities they trust as a belief in the Trinity or Immaculate Conception. And the same is pretty much true for non-believers in all these things. For the actual official position of the CC, church sources are best. The problem here is really that: a) there really is no single clear "official position", rather a certain range of positions are encouraged, without others being very strongly discouraged, and b) the church generally prefers to avoid making clear statements in simple language as to what those positions are. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Paleonate I get what you're saying about the Church position often being in conflict with how many Catholics act, but as Johnbod said church sources are best on these things plus secular sources can often misunderstand the Church, this has happened a lot with Pope Francis for example.Ilikerabbits! (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church/Archive_2&oldid=1136712197"