Catholic View on Evolution

[gearhead]

It is not ID alone.

It is ID (DNA) coupled with adaptation. Maybe I should rename it IDapt.

ID already includes adaptation. It allows for naturalistic evolution most of the time, but claims that there must have been “intelligent” intervention at some points along the way, and that deliberate design is the best explanation for some of life’s features.

However, I still don’t see how your statement that “God created the language of DNA and set it into the kinds” has anything to do with ID.

 

[buffalo]

ID already includes adaptation. It allows for naturalistic evolution most of the time, but claims that there must have been “intelligent” intervention at some points along the way, and that deliberate design is the best explanation for some of life’s features.

However, I still don’t see how your statement that “God created the language of DNA and set it into the kinds” has anything to do with ID.

Don’t think about it based on what we call ID.

The ID part I refer to is God’s language of DNA. So an intelligently designed language if you will.

 

[gearhead]

Don’t think about it based on what we call ID.

The ID part I refer to is God’s language of DNA. So an intelligently designed language if you will.

Ah. Silly me, using the accepted definition of a term.

 

[reggieM]

Wait… how is this ID?

And are you trying to say that this statement is reconcilable with ID (i.e. “evolution alone would be incapable of creating all the varieties of life we see today”) but not theistic evolution (i.e. “evolution was used as a tool of God in His Creation”)?

I don’t think theistic evolution holds that God “used” evolution since that would mean that God was involved in the evolutionary process somehow (by creating or directing it). That would be a refutation of Darwinian theory and theistic evolution attempts to reconcile theism with evolution by adjusting theistic belief to Darwinian orthodoxy (in other words, without offering any challenge or contradiction to Darwinian theory).

 

[antonabe]

Well since you’ve given your opinion that’s not so much on topic of catholic beleifs but your own, I’ll respond.

Firstly, evolution is not a matter of opinion. The "fact’ that we evolved is well established. How it actually happened is up for debate, but evolution itself is not. It’s not opinion anymore than humans having an organ called a heart is an opinion. Religious people often call it that, because they are at least subconciously aware it challenges their traditional beilefs. This is not integrity even if it offers some comfort.

Scientists don’t’ need to debate evolution. It hasn’t been in doubt for quite a while now.(several hundred years…lol)

2ndly, Evolution indicates that we evolved into self-awareness and conciousness, and that we did not come from one man and one woman. Adam and Eve could never have actually existed as humans given the knowlege the universe has so far presented.
Evolution also shows, we did not “fall” into a state of imperfection from a state of perfect union with a God. We cannot have been “in union” with God as we were evolving since our ancestors were single cell organism. At what point in our evolutionary path did we fall?

There is not a bias amongst scientists towards athiesm. People who study human life, biology and history begin to 'realize" that religion is wrong, especially when it makes a very disctinct claim we come from one man and woman, and that we 'fell" from a state of union, rather than grew into self-awarness… A difference of opinion is not alway’s a bias. Those that enjoy and research the world, “become” athiests as it is the only rational place they can be considering what religions expect them to believe about God. it’s a result of knowlege and understanding to a degree. it’s not a bias in and of itself.(Although bias can often occur)

Evolution contradicts the traditional christian story completely, and evolution is not an opinion. It is just one of the most difficult concepts for believers to really address. If we evolved, we simply did not “disobey” a God at any point and this life is not a result of a seperation from God.

You cannot base your faith on a story , a church or a religion. It must be based on an actual, very real God. The traditional christian story, relies now on a belief despite evidence. And it is failing. Thankfully, there are some humans whos’ faith in a God doesn’t actually come from a Book or a church. They don’t need to call evolution an Opinion anymore than they need to deny buddha. I like these people. They are very interesting

Cheers

The initiator of the Thread wanted to know the Catholic view of Evolution and this is not a debate on evolution.I believe he has adequtaely received a satisfactory response.As an Atheist or an Agnostic your views will certainly be opposite to the view of the Church but you are certainly entitled to your views.

 

[emseguin]

"***Come on man. You’re going to have to face the fact sooner or later. You are allowed to believe in evolution.

I understand that you probably never will, because you choose not to. That is fine, because this is allowed. However, don’t get the wrong idea that everybody else has to believe in pseudo-scientific theories. ***"

This goes for anything, God gave us the freedom to choose. So, sure! You can believe in re-incarnation and human beings evolving from crystals if you want.
I always refer back to a wonderful priest who stated that there are some things that will be hard to understand, hard to believe in, even when proven to be truth, from Christ. Example:The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - WHO WILL EVER BE ABLE TO WRAP THEIR HEAD AROUND THAT?! Never, and so with creation, the Traditional Christian Story, of course many will find it hard and many want to know proven facts…thats the “human” way… wanting to be God.
It just doesn’t work that way… and thankfully, to believe in the Truth is so much easier!

 

[mnealon1]

Of all the threads I have read I am inclined to agree with JanetF the most , as I heard evolution from the Catholic point of view explained recently. The Church is not against evolution and a religious was explaining that it was most likely that when “man” had reached a certain point i.e. intellegence ect, God created a soul in " man", being Adam and Eve. The most important factor being ,from that moment on man had a SOUL, making him in likenes to God, by God, and different from all other creatures on earth.
The over-riding importance in all the discussions is that everything, was created by God, from the very beginning, and without Him nothing would be.
I’am happy with that!

 

[Ginkgo100]

I’m looking into this topic for personal interest: what is the Catholic Church’s official teaching on evolution? I’d rather remain on just the Church’s view, not personal opinion for now if we can, just to stay on-topic.

There is no official teaching on evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that is not in the realm of the Church’s concern. Catholics are free to make a decision on whether or not to believe the natural aspects of the theory of evolution based on available scientific evidence. (Though personally, I think rejecting evolution is a bit like rejecting Einstein’s theories or the Standard Model of quantum mechanics.)

Many people have made inferences about the supernatural world, the meaning of human life, etc. based on the purely natural theory of evolution. The Church does have some things to say about this. The following conclusions, whose supporters sometimes appeal to evolution in their arguments, are rejected by the Church:

1. Some humans are superior in value to others, or the corollary, some humans are inferior in value to others (racism).
2. Humans are nothing but a clever type of animal (pure materialism).
3. Some humans are more animal-like than others (racism meets materialism).
4. It is acceptable, commendable, or dutiful to attempt to “breed” humans to produce physically or intellectually superior children, or to prevent the “breeding” of people with genetic imperfections (eugenics).

Furthermore, Catholics are required to believe the following about creation, regardless of whether they accept or reject any particular proposition of science:

1. God is the sole and ultimate Creator of the universe and everything in it; that is, everything that exists that is not God was created by Him.
2. Humans are distinct from animals in having an immortal spiritual soul, created by God.
3. All humans are descended from two individuals, identified in Scripture as Adam and Eve. They were the first humans (per #2), were given great blessings including earthly immortality, and chose to disobey God, thus losing those blessings. This first act of disobedience is called Original Sin and it is inherited by all humans.
4. All human beings have an innate dignity, each one equal to that of all other humans, that we are bound to respect (the Second Great Commandment, or #4-10 of the Ten Commandments).

A Catholic who believes the theory of evolution is true while also accepting all doctrines of the Church could speculate the following:

God created the universe and its governing laws from nothing. As a result of those initial conditions, galaxies, stars, and solar system formed via natural processes. On our planet, reproducing molecular assemblages (the first life forms) arose as a result of more natural processes (abiogenesis*). Natural selection led to the evolution of those life forms, resulting in many complex organisms. God then took two individuals of one of those species of organisms, the immediate animal ancestors of humans, and infused souls into them, creating a new type of being—one whose nature has both a natural body and a supernatural soul. Cue the story of the Fall and subsequent events of human history.

 

[Ginkgo100]

Effectively, this would imply that there were “soulless” human beings wandering around before they all died out.

“Soulless human being” is an oxymoron. There were animals, identical in form to humans, which belonged to the same species as the two ancestral individuals before the creation of their souls.

Personally, the hardest part to understand of this whole narrative—in fact, the only part that gives me any difficulty—is the biological descent of all people from just two individuals, rather than from a larger population. That’s the most extreme population bottleneck possible. Scientific evidence has not proven that this happened, and there is even some evidence that suggests it did not happen. (On the other hand, the latter position is argued by Richard Dawkins, whose reason is frequently clouded by his dogmatic atheism, so I am not sure how strong the evidence really is. In other words, I don’t consider Dawkins a reliable source for any science that appears to disprove any theological belief of any faith.)

No doubt driving many atheists crazy, at this point I make a leap of faith. There is too much other evidence for the Catholic faith (including not only considerable objective evidence, but also my personal experiences—how can I disbelieve in Christ when I have actually met Him?) for me to reject it based on this one problem. So I consider it simply a problem that still needs to be resolved. Perhaps future scientific discoveries will surprise the atheists; perhaps, as the Church’s doctrines develop toward fullness, there will be nuances that clarify the apparent problems.

 

[antunesaa]

Firstly, evolution is not a matter of opinion. The "fact’ that we evolved is well established. How it actually happened is up for debate, but evolution itself is not. … Religious people often call it that, because they are at least subconciously aware it challenges their traditional beilefs. This is not integrity even if it offers some comfort.

As always you agnostics/atheists adopt a profoundly irritating attitude of superiority when answering believers about scientific topics. Because you irritated me, I shall bother to answer your arrogant verve. (Now it’s me who sounds arrogant – anyway.) Your first assertion is, of course, unscientific. Your statement basically says that you have your own scientific dogmas. Dogmas are for religions and philosophical systems, not for science. How do you know that a credible theory of life coming from out of space will not show up in the future? Or that what we know as “evolution” is but a subsidiary mechanism of speciation, and an entirely new mechanism is responsible for the wealth of species Earth happens to have? You don’t know, of course. No one knows. As for the “challenges”, you say that because you have either no knowledge of religions (and in particular of the catholic position on evolution) or you’re just interested in decrying believers. The truth is: evolution, if it is true, cannot be incompatible with Truth; therefore believers not only should embrace it, but also give it their scientific contributions, which, of course, they did. For example, two of the most prominent contributors to the biologic sciences were devout catholics (Mendel and Pasteur) in times of constant attacks to the Church. They didn’t have to renege on their faith in order to study the beauty of creation.

2ndly, Evolution indicates that we evolved into self-awareness and conciousness, and that we did not come from one man and one woman. Adam and Eve could never have actually existed as humans given the knowlege the universe has so far presented.

Since you say this it’s obvious that you are no serious scientist; otherwise, you should know that this is open for debate and has not been settled – if it is possible for any scientific question to be settled, which I doubt. And even if the hypothesis of multiple human ancestors being the first proto-humans turned out to be more likely, Adam and Eve could well be any proto-human couple. The atheist brotherhood has its own faus pas in this respect, with the steady state / big bang controversy in the early XXth century. Ironically, it was a catholic priest and astronomer who shattered position espoused by most atheists.

Evolution also shows, we did not “fall” into a state of imperfection from a state of perfect union with a God. We cannot have been “in union” with God as we were evolving since our ancestors were single cell organism. At what point in our evolutionary path did we fall?

Stop saying “evolution shows” because this is unscientific. Traditional Church teaching says it happened, it does not say when or how. And since this is a spiritual event, there’s no hope of having a scientific proof of that. (Again, remember that “scientific proofs” do not exist – only “scientific refutations”.)

There is not a bias amongst scientists towards athiesm. People who study human life, biology and history begin to 'realize" that religion is wrong, especially when it makes a very disctinct claim we come from one man and woman, and that we 'fell" from a state of union, rather than grew into self-awarness… A difference of opinion is not alway’s a bias. Those that enjoy and research the world, “become” athiests as it is the only rational place they can be considering what religions expect them to believe about God.

This is so irritating and ignorant! There are credible studies on this issue that basically say the following. 1) There is indeed a slight bias among more cultivated people (not necessarily scientists) towards atheism. 2) The bias has remained roughly constant over the last 1.5 centuries, with large cross-country variations and typically a larger share of believers. 3) Basic sciences such as mathematics and physics have more believers, and human sciences such as anthropology or evolutionary biology have fewer believers.
So, 1) says that the sentence “those who enjoy and research the world become atheists” is nonsense; what drives the bias is instruction, not being a researcher or “someone who enjoys life”. I would say that the profound reason for this bias is pride. People think they have all the answers, when they have but a very limited, obscured view of the world. Come on, we can’t even cure a flu… As for 3), you have a minor point there, but who cares about religious beliefs of anthropologists and evolutionists? Or physicists, for that matter?

You cannot base your faith on a story , a church or a religion.

Says who? If people want to believe in Dawkins’ beloved Flying Spaghetti Monster, let them believe. It’s likely that such belief will not solve any of the deep spiritual and philosophical problems that have afflicted mankind since the dawn of times. And, if you think really hard, atheism is bound to lead man to nihilism or hedonism, or some philosophical system that has been tried many times in the past and failed to bring answers to people. In the end, forget about science when thinking about God or its non-existence. Think about it using the much superior philosophical arguments that serious thinkers about religion have used over the millennia. And now, I’ll leave you with your certainties about “atheists who research and enjoy the world” because I have to prepare a real presentation on a real problem in a real academic conference.

 

[catholic4reason]

Evolution is a matter of SCIENCE not faith.

Whether the earth was created in 24 hours, 10000 years ago is a matter of science, not of faith. Whether life on earth has evolved from nonliving matter is also a matter of science. This is why both Pope B16 believes and JP2 believed in evolution. I believe that the intelligent creator God used natural causes like evolution to bring about his creation (originally ex nihilio). Evolution can only account for the origins of the human body, not of his immaterial soul.

Let’s remember what Pope John Paul II stated to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996.

“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the [Pope Pius XII Humani Generis] Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of **more than a hypothesis **in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”

Read on here for a good Catholic resource that provides scientific evidence for the evolution of species.

 

[edwest2]

“Soulless human being” is an oxymoron. There were animals, identical in form to humans, which belonged to the same species as the two ancestral individuals before the creation of their souls.

Personally, the hardest part to understand of this whole narrative—in fact, the only part that gives me any difficulty—is the biological descent of all people from just two individuals, rather than from a larger population. That’s the most extreme population bottleneck possible. Scientific evidence has not proven that this happened, and there is even some evidence that suggests it did not happen. (On the other hand, the latter position is argued by Richard Dawkins, whose reason is frequently clouded by his dogmatic atheism, so I am not sure how strong the evidence really is. In other words, I don’t consider Dawkins a reliable source for any science that appears to disprove any theological belief of any faith.)

No doubt driving many atheists crazy, at this point I make a leap of faith. There is too much other evidence for the Catholic faith (including not only considerable objective evidence, but also my personal experiences—how can I disbelieve in Christ when I have actually met Him?) for me to reject it based on this one problem. So I consider it simply a problem that still needs to be resolved. Perhaps future scientific discoveries will surprise the atheists; perhaps, as the Church’s doctrines develop toward fullness, there will be nuances that clarify the apparent problems.

There is zero science to support the idea that there were animals that were identical to humans before souls were dropped into them. There is no peer reviewed scientific paper that verifies such a fictional linkage.

Please read Part 37 of the encyclical Humani Generis.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

There is no official teaching on evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that is not in the realm of the Church’s concern. Catholics are free to make a decision on whether or not to believe the natural aspects of the theory of evolution based on available scientific evidence. (Though personally, I think rejecting evolution is a bit like rejecting Einstein’s theories or the Standard Model of quantum mechanics.)

Many people have made inferences about the supernatural world, the meaning of human life, etc. based on the purely natural theory of evolution. The Church does have some things to say about this. The following conclusions, whose supporters sometimes appeal to evolution in their arguments, are rejected by the Church:

1. Some humans are superior in value to others, or the corollary, some humans are inferior in value to others (racism).
2. Humans are nothing but a clever type of animal (pure materialism).
3. Some humans are more animal-like than others (racism meets materialism).
4. It is acceptable, commendable, or dutiful to attempt to “breed” humans to produce physically or intellectually superior children, or to prevent the “breeding” of people with genetic imperfections (eugenics).

Furthermore, Catholics are required to believe the following about creation, regardless of whether they accept or reject any particular proposition of science:

1. God is the sole and ultimate Creator of the universe and everything in it; that is, everything that exists that is not God was created by Him.
2. Humans are distinct from animals in having an immortal spiritual soul, created by God.
3. All humans are descended from two individuals, identified in Scripture as Adam and Eve. They were the first humans (per #2), were given great blessings including earthly immortality, and chose to disobey God, thus losing those blessings. This first act of disobedience is called Original Sin and it is inherited by all humans.
4. All human beings have an innate dignity, each one equal to that of all other humans, that we are bound to respect (the Second Great Commandment, or #4-10 of the Ten Commandments).

A Catholic who believes the theory of evolution is true while also accepting all doctrines of the Church could speculate the following:

God created the universe and its governing laws from nothing. As a result of those initial conditions, galaxies, stars, and solar system formed via natural processes. On our planet, reproducing molecular assemblages (the first life forms) arose as a result of more natural processes (abiogenesis*). Natural selection led to the evolution of those life forms, resulting in many complex organisms. God then took two individuals of one of those species of organisms, the immediate animal ancestors of humans, and infused souls into them, creating a new type of being—one whose nature has both a natural body and a supernatural soul. Cue the story of the Fall and subsequent events of human history.

“no official teaching on evolution”? Please read Part 37 of the encyclical Humani Generis.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Evolution is a matter of SCIENCE not faith.

Whether the earth was created in 24 hours, 10000 years ago is a matter of science, not of faith. Whether life on earth has evolved from nonliving matter is also a matter of science. This is why both Pope B16 believes and JP2 believed in evolution. I believe that the intelligent creator God used natural causes like evolution to bring about his creation (originally ex nihilio). Evolution can only account for the origins of the human body, not of his immaterial soul.

Let’s remember what Pope John Paul II stated to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996.

“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the [Pope Pius XII Humani Generis] Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of **more than a hypothesis **in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”

Read on here for a good Catholic resource that provides scientific evidence for the evolution of species.

This is a distortion of what Pope John Paul II said. And Pope Benedict commented on it later. “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Here is something else Pope Benedict said:

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

---

We are not haphazard mistakes.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bluegoat]

Personally, the hardest part to understand of this whole narrative—in fact, the only part that gives me any difficulty—is the biological descent of all people from just two individuals, rather than from a larger population. That’s the most extreme population bottleneck possible. Scientific evidence has not proven that this happened, and there is even some evidence that suggests it did not happen. (On the other hand, the latter position is argued by Richard Dawkins, whose reason is frequently clouded by his dogmatic atheism, so I am not sure how strong the evidence really is. In other words, I don’t consider Dawkins a reliable source for any science that appears to disprove any theological belief of any faith.)

It is not really clear what is meant by the idea that we are descended from Adam and Eve, who were the first humans. There are a variety of opinions on this among the Church Fathers, some of whom interpret it more esoterically than others. Not to say that it is unacceptable to believe in a clear biological decent as many here are suggesting, but it isn’t the only option. I am content to speculate on it, as it is interesting, but it isn’t an important point of faith for me.

My reading of the evidence on whether this more straightforward interpretation is correct is that it is really pretty inconclusive, and perhaps even unknowable, but I am not an expert by any means. I also don’t trust Dawkins and wouldn’t bother to read his opinion even in scientific matters - someone who reasons as badly as he does is suspect to me, even as a scientist.

 

[Bluegoat]

"***Come on man. You’re going to have to face the fact sooner or later. You are allowed to believe in evolution.

I understand that you probably never will, because you choose not to. That is fine, because this is allowed. However, don’t get the wrong idea that everybody else has to believe in pseudo-scientific theories. ***"

This goes for anything, God gave us the freedom to choose. So, sure! You can believe in re-incarnation and human beings evolving from crystals if you want.
I always refer back to a wonderful priest who stated that there are some things that will be hard to understand, hard to believe in, even when proven to be truth, from Christ. Example:The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - WHO WILL EVER BE ABLE TO WRAP THEIR HEAD AROUND THAT?! Never, and so with creation, the Traditional Christian Story, of course many will find it hard and many want to know proven facts…thats the “human” way… wanting to be God.
It just doesn’t work that way… and thankfully, to believe in the Truth is so much easier!

Reincarnation is clearly against Catholic doctrine, whereas evolution has been made a matter of personal conviction for Catholics. So it’s hardly the same thing. Any number of good Catholics subscribe to evolution as a very likely theory, including, I suspect, several Popes.

 

[edwest2]

Reincarnation is clearly against Catholic doctrine, whereas evolution has been made a matter of personal conviction for Catholics. So it’s hardly the same thing. Any number of good Catholics subscribe to evolution as a very likely theory, including, I suspect, several Popes.

Is evolution the new circumcision? “several Popes”? Can you provide a list?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It is not really clear what is meant by the idea that we are descended from Adam and Eve, who were the first humans. There are a variety of opinions on this among the Church Fathers, some of whom interpret it more esoterically than others. Not to say that it is unacceptable to believe in a clear biological decent as many here are suggesting, but it isn’t the only option. I am content to speculate on it, as it is interesting, but it isn’t an important point of faith for me.

My reading of the evidence on whether this more straightforward interpretation is correct is that it is really pretty inconclusive, and perhaps even unknowable, but I am not an expert by any means. I also don’t trust Dawkins and wouldn’t bother to read his opinion even in scientific matters - someone who reasons as badly as he does is suspect to me, even as a scientist.

I strongly urge you to consider this point of faith. The Bible tells us clearly:

Romans 5:12

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

“by one man sin entered into the world” While some seek to persuade others that Genesis is somehow symbolic, do not ignore this.

This is why Jesus Christ was born, lived, died and rose again for us. He did not die for identical animals. The Church tells us clearly, there were two individuals – Adam and Eve. This is what I was taught in Catholic school as well.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bluegoat]

I strongly urge you to consider this point of faith. The Bible tells us clearly:

Romans 5:12

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

“by one man sin entered into the world” While some seek to persuade others that Genesis is somehow symbolic, do not ignore this.

This is why Jesus Christ was born, lived, died and rose again for us. He did not die for identical animals. The Church tells us clearly, there were two individuals – Adam and Eve. This is what I was taught in Catholic school as well.

Peace,
Ed

I don’t think anything I said, or the Church Fathers, really contradicts what you have quoted. In any case, proof-texting is not really a Catholic or even catholic method of determining truth.

Catholic school teachings are designed for children; even when they are perfectly legitimate (and sometimes they aren’t), they are aimed at the understanding of a child.

 

[Bluegoat]

Is evolution the new circumcision? “several Popes”? Can you provide a list?

Peace,
Ed

I suspect the last two, however, I am inferring based on other comments, which is why I said suspected.

I don’t think it would be equivalent to circumcision, which clearly has a relative and relational aspect. Evolution is either true in some form, or untrue; but we are free to come to conclusions based on the evidence. Perhaps you could compare it to the Catholic position on the speed of light.