Talk:Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church article.
Article policies
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
To-do list for Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Cleanup:
    • Turn external link style refs into proper inline refs
Priority 3  

Contents

[edit] Catholic Church News Alert

Here is a link to a news article saying that a cardinal is saying the Church shouldn't accept evolution. Is the catholic church rethinking its view of evolution? Although this isn't an official statement from the Vatican, the cardinal did ask Pope Benedict to make a statement that was less vague than John Paul II's statement about evolution. Should we update the article top reflect this? Mred64 02:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cardinal Schonborn

Good that Schonborn's comments were added but I added in addition statements from the International Theological Commission (headed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004) stating evolution (common descent) is "virtually certain" which is important. (comment by PhilVaz from 2005) PhilVaz 04:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Pius IX should be edited

I think the section on Pius IX here should be edited. I am wondering where Stephen Jay Gould got that quotation from Pius IX. The reference in a quick Google search is from the First Vatican Council. It is indeed an ecumenical Council so it is dogma, but I do not see that statement quoted there, nor is there specifically anything against evolution in there. The closest we have are statements like these (all quoted from Vatican Council I):

1. On God the creator of all things
1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
5. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

However, all of these statements can be seen in an evolutionary context, that God "produced" or "created" the initial "matter" (the Big Bang) and from there nature and evolution took over.

However, I would definitely like to see a citation for the following: "let him be anathema … [w]ho shall say that human sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit of freedom that those may be allowed to hold as true their assertions, even when opposed to revealed doctrine." (supposedly this is from Pope Pius IX, quoted by Stephen Jay Gould in Rock of Ages).

That's not good enough since this pope wrote several dozen encyclicals. The reference (in a Google search) to Vatican Council I appears to be in error also (the statement is not in there, unless someone is using a very different translation of Vatican I than what I have). The relevant "creation" statements are quoted above.

What Gould might be referring to is this:

"9. Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth." (Vatican Council I)

But there is no specific reference to evolution here. I would like to see the exact reference from Pius IX for Gould's statement from Rocks of Ages, thanks.

Furthermore, this same Pope Pius IX in the next paragraph says faith and reason do not conflict:

"10. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds."

The full Vatican Council I document is here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

PhilVaz 03:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

NO ONE HAS MADE ANY COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE, SO I AM ADDING THIS TO THE SECTION ON PIUS IX. STEPHEN JAY GOULD IS NOT ANY AUTHORITY ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND IT APPEARS HE HAS QUOTED VATICAN COUNCIL I INCORRECTLY, AS I HAVE SHOWN. PhilVaz 05:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
On the following: "The Origin of Species appeared on the Church's Index Librorum Prohibitorum from 1948 until the list of prohibited books was suppressed in 1966." I do not know if this is true. I have deleted it, do you have a source for this, especially on the dates? PhilVaz 05:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no source for this statement "Origin of Species" appeared on the Church's Index of Prohibited Books, and from the lists available in a quick search, Darwin's book was never included. If Nunh-huh has a source for this, please provide it. I do not believe this is true, but I will stand corrected if you can provide a source. Two links from the article on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum are here INDEX LIBRORVM PROHIBITORVM -- 1948 and Modern History Sourcebook: Index librorum prohibitorum, 1557-1966. The only relevant book showing up on this list is by Henri Bergson (FR) titled CREATIVE EVOLUTION (1914) which may have something to do with biological evolution, but the Origin of Species itself is not listed. PhilVaz 07:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two unresolved but related issues

  1. How authoritative are Schonborn's interpretation's of Catholic catechism and papal statements?
  2. When Catholics speaking of "believing in evolution", do they mean (A) naturalistic evolution / "unguided evolution"; (B) guided or "theistic" evolution; or (C) either one indifferently?

Schonborn seems to be repudiating the idea that the RC church accepts naturalistic evolution, i.e., the idea that that natural forces alone account for the gradual appearance of new forms of life. He has attributed to Pope John Paul the idea that naturalistic evolution is "not true". Uncle Ed 17:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Not so, see my long discussion in Evolutionary creationism. Ed you aren't even Catholic, let me set the record straight on Catholicism and evolution. See Cardinal Schonborn's first catechetical lecture on the topic. He clearly has in mind folks like Julian Huxley, Will Provine, and Peter Atkins (he quotes them directly in his lecture) and others (like Richard Dawkins) who interpret evolution in the sense of philosophical naturalism (or materialism). He has no problems with natural evolution as such, and neither does the Catholic Church (see the International Theological Commission statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict, especially paragraphs 62-70). Editorials in the New York Times are not Catholic dogma. I would also recommend a source such as Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott for what we believe on creation. Creation and evolution are compatible in the sense of God-guided or theistic evolution. The Church has always believed the universe was created by God. But science (biology) is silent on the existence or guidance of God as you should know, since science is methodologically natural. But I was hoping for some commentary on Pius IX (see up above) from the 19th century. PhilVaz 16:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Please let Schonborn speak for himself:

Defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith. But this is not true. [1]
BTW, I already replied to this with Schonborn's clarification: he CLEARLY has in mind folks who take evolution as an atheistic worldview:
"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. In the citations given above [he cites Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter Atkins], it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one's territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews." (Schonborn, 10/2/2005, catechetical lecture)
That is Schonborn's position and what he means by "neo-Darwinian dogma." Schonborn has clarified what he meant. He has no problem with natural science nor natural evolution as such. Of course he believes in God as well, but his critique is philosophical or theological, NOT scientific. I hate to repeat myself, but you misunderstood Schonborn once again. He has made himself clear. PhilVaz 07:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Science is (usually) silent on the guidance of God, but the Roman Catholic Church is not. Schonborn says (in the quote I cited) and Bendict also says (elsewhere) that:

  1. the RC church rejects unguided evolution, but
  2. the RC church accepts divinely guided evolution

If you want the present article to reflect this view, then we are in agreement, and I can't understand your objections above such as "you aren't even Catholic" or "Editorials in the New York Times are not Catholic dogma".

BTW, it is a fact you aren't Catholic but a Moonie, correct? Do you have Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott? Have you read the International Theological Commission statement from July 2004? They are most explicit on creation and evolution and Catholic dogma. There is no conflict with science, but you are trying to claim there is. Schonborn disagrees with you, and Benedict XVI disagrees with you. See his commentary on Genesis I linked at the bottom of the article. PhilVaz 07:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think the article should not reflect this view, then please provide a source - such as the pope himself, an authorized commission, or a cardinal speaking for the pope - which gives a different view. Uncle Ed 21:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have provided the sources dozens of times: Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his commentary on Genesis, the International Theological Commission statement from July 2004 endorsed by Ratzinger/Benedict, Cardinal Schonborn from his catechetical lectures on creation and evolution (not authoritative, but interesting), the Vatican Council I documents, and Ludwig Ott's book Fundmamentals of Catholic Dogma. Those are my main sources. PhilVaz 07:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big cut

670 words cut:

On July 7, 2005, an op-ed essay by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, claiming to clarify the position of the Roman Catholic Church on evolution, was published by the New York Times[2] and gained widespread attention. In particular, the archbishop minimized the significance of Pope John Paul II's oft-quoted remark that evolution is "more than a hypothesis." The late pope's comment was made in a "rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter," said Schönborn. "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. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

To support his statements, Schönborn pointed to a speech made by Pope John Paul II to a general audience in 1985, and to a document issued in 2004 by the International Theological Commission, the president of which was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who subsequently became Pope Benedict XVI). Schönborn has reportedly stated that he had been encouraged to express his views on the topic of evolution by the new pope, but that the essay had not actually been approved by the Vatican. Nonetheless, the comments have been interpreted by some as coming indirectly from the new pope, and as signalling that the Catholic Church is perhaps embracing intelligent design.

In the 1985 address mentioned by Schönborn, Pope John Paul II had stated, "The evolution of living beings...presents an internal finality [i.e., design] which...obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator." The 2004 document included statements such as,

"In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process—one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence—simply cannot exist...." (paragraph 69)

However, the same International Theological Commission statement is very clear about the factual nature of evolution or "common descent," calling it "virtually certain":

"While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution." (paragraph 63)

In a commentary on Genesis authored as Cardinal Ratzinger titled In the Beginning... Benedict XVI spoke of "the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason" and that these two realms of knowledge are complementary, not contradictory:

"We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the "project" of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities." (Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)

[edit] A thought...

I think what we have here is a lot of people being very confused about precisely what the RCC believes in regards to evolution. Not surprising, lots of people are.

That then creates the problem that nobody is entirely sure what's authoritative and what's not.

So as to push the discussion forward, might I suggest something?

Ignore op-eds. Including Schonborn's. In terms of Catholic teaching, they have no authority.

Look for documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and from the International Theological Commission. Those have a moderate degree of authority.

Next, look for Papal statements. Those have a slightly higher degree of authority.

Next, look for encyclicals and similar Papal documents. They have the highest degree of authority. Also here are things like the Cathecism.

Conciliar documents, such as from Vatican I, can be somewhat ignored if they come before Vatican II. On this issue, the Vatican II document "Lumen Gentium" is authoritative, superseding the Vatican I documents.

Where there are conflicts:

Look at the authority matrix, but pay heed to date.

Newer statements of lesser authority reflect the change of doctrine.

So far as we have anything, JP2's 1996 statement is the most authoritative recent statement we have.

Unfortunately, it says very little. --Penta 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes you're right, theologically Catholicism is very different to American protestantism which gave birth to the creationist movement and are certainly not interested in the sort of fundamentalist theocracy that most of them want. Sure, they use the teleological argument, but phrase it in theological language which is a lot different from scientific language and hence it isn't pseudoscience, which is what irks me as a scientist. But I don't understand theology (probably because I've been trained to think too scientifically). And the Catholic Church most of the time has better things to do than make statements on scientific issues. But Catholics are really into authority, so what the hierarchy says, goes. — Dunc|☺ 18:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear you acknowledge that religious pronouncements about scientific matters are not pseudoscience. I have perhaps a slight advantage in these matters because my scientific training preceded my adoption of any religious beliefs. And with my characteristic stubborn-ness (you do realize that I can be stubborn? ;-) I refused to give up any of my scientific outlook when I joined my church at age 18 (I am now 46).
Catholics (as a mass of believers) have various opinions on evolution. Their church leaders try to present a more or less united front. I applaud Penta's concept of a hierarchy of authority, and I'm glad he pointed out that lower ranks might pre-sage a theological shift. That is, a cardinal might clarify a pope's position - and actually be right about this being the new Authorized Stance.
I hope these insights will facilitate our cooperation as we seek to craft accurate articles on what ideas the various sides in the creation-evolution controversy espouse. Uncle Ed 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why a huge chunk of this had to be deleted. You all left my citations on Catholic dogma on creation. We should agree on what "sources" of Catholic dogma are authoritative. A New York Times editorial by Cardinal Schonborn is not Catholic dogma. Nor are the statements of a priest-astronomer George Coyne. They certainly help, but I would rank authoritative sources on evolution (since Darwin):
1870 -- Vatican Council I on creation (does not mention evolution)
1950 -- Pius XII, encyclical Humani Generis (explicitly mentions evolution)
1996 -- John Paul II, Letter to Pontifical Academy of Sciences
2004 -- International Theological Commission (because it is the most explicit, and authorized by Ratzinger, who became pope)
A source like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott will give you all the authoritative papal statements, encyclicals, councils, Fathers and Scripture texts that apply to what dogma. Also a source like Denzinger will lay it all out.
Lesser statements can be included by Cardinal Schonborn, Poupard, Fr. George Coyne, and others but the statements of Popes and Councils should be noted and quoted first. The section on Benedict XVI as it stands now does not even quote Benedict (Ratzinger). Fr. Coyne should not be quoted there since he doesn't speak for the Church, although I acknowledge he is the Vatican astronomer. PhilVaz 08:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

If the church (or an official in it) teaches against "unguided evolution" but otherwise accepts "evolution" then how (in the context of the creation-evolution controversy is Wikipedia to define these terms?

PhilVaz here. Schonborn has written against unguided evolution but in the sense of a metaphysical naturalism (he specifically cites Provine, Atkins, and Julian Huxley). He has no problem with natural evolution as such (a methodological naturalism) and recognizes Darwin's genius and the progress of science. His was a philosophical or theological critque of Darwinism, not a scientific one. The science he has no problems with and I've quoted him to that effect. PhilVaz 05:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Does "evolution" always mean "unguided evolution" (which Dunchharris redirected to the Evolution article)?

PhilVaz here. In my view there is no such thing as "unguided" vs. "guided" evolution in a scientific sense. To speak of evolution being "guided by God" (theistic evolution) is a philosophical or theological idea, not a scientific one. And that is the philosophical or theological idea that I accept, along with John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Cardinal Schonborn, Fr. George Coyne, and the International Theological Commission statement (endorsed by Ratzinger last year). I've quoted the relevant portions from those, yet (sadly) they were deleted. I've also quoted Ratzinger's commentary on Genesis from 1986 titled In the Beginning (republished under the name of Benedict XVI). I do not know why those were deleted, since they are very important statements of the mind of the current Pope on the evolution issue. I can quote Michael Behe as well saying there is no inherent problem with "natural selection" from a Catholic standpoint (see Behe's chapter in Dembski's anti-evolution book Uncommon Dissent). PhilVaz 05:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Or do some religious people make a distinction between the following concepts?

  1. "evolution" meaning common descent (of unspecified cause)
  2. "evolution" meaning "unplanned, unguided" appearance of new forms (i.e., not guided by anying other than natural selection)

The question is whether the term evolution necessarily denotes naturalistic, unplanned evolution in all contexts. What can Wikipedia writers do, if it turns out that Creationists and "guided evolutionists" (like possibly the RCC) don't use the word the same way biologists do? Uncle Ed 18:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In a scientific context, evolution denotes methodological naturalism, not metaphysical naturalism. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Theistic evolution is the position of the Church, but it is not a scientific concept. The section on the Catholic Church and evolution in the evolutionary creationism article is just fine by me, and should be reflected here as well. PhilVaz 05:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I don't understand what methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism are. Uncle Ed 22:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The article on evolution and the Roman Catholic Church is looking good and more accurate now, thanks to my massive edits. We can debate if you disagree. I quoted and added material from Ludwig Ott, Vatican Council I, and the International Theological Commission, all relevant and most explicit about the Catholic teaching on creation and evolution. I have no agenda here, only to be accurate on the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. PhilVaz 06:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where church agrees and disagrees with Evolution

In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points. [3]

What are these points? Uncle Ed 22:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually John Paul II lays them out in the statement. The primary point seems to be this:
  • "It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity. Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God (animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet)." (Humani Generis)
You shouldn't have a problem with this since science does not deal with souls which are spiritual in nature. In addition, I have layed out all the essential Catholic dogma I could on the doctrine of creation, and have clearly shown the Church has no argument with the natural sciences, provided we know the proper limits of science and faith. See also the Pius XII summary I provided in the article, which I took from an EWTN article here. In the article Stenson summarizes the Pius XII encyclical as follows:
  • 1. The question of the origin of man's body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on Revelation.
  • 2. Catholics must believe, however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
  • 3. All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism," the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans.
I have qualified the teaching on "polygenism" somewhat with commentary from other Catholic theologians (Neuner/Dupuis, Roberto Masi), but this is a good summary of the thinking of the Catholic Church in 1950. Now after all my hard work of laying all this teaching out, when are we going to start having some agreement here on what is the official teaching of the Church ??? PhilVaz 04:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Phil, I trust you. Please restore anything I "sadly" deleted from Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. Uncle Ed 16:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems fine now. One thing I still have questions about is whether Darwin's "Origin of Species" was ever put on the Index of Prohibited books as someone claimed in here (under the section on Pius IX). I deleted that, since I don't think it ever was. Otherwise, I like the article the way it is, perhaps more "commentary" can be added rather than simply quotes that I provided. PhilVaz 02:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New development

Please read and include in the article as you see fit: [4] --ScienceApologist 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to include a sentence or two from that article. For those who don't want to sign in to the NY Times, the article was from Jan 19, 2006 and titled "In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome" and cites Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna from the official Vatican newspaper. Deserves a sentence or two, but I tried to stick to the official statements of the Popes and Councils that speak to the issue. PhilVaz 05:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

On the edit from 5/8/2006 by anonymous (PLEASE sign in so we know who is who), I prefer the term "dogma" since it has a technical meaning in Catholic theology. Essential belief probably means the same. But I'll accept the change from dogma to teaching or "essential belief" since many don't know what "dogma" means. The word "dogma" should have an entry in Wikipedia as well. PhilVaz 23:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design and the Roman Catholic Church

Right now I am having trouble convincing some editors on intelligent design that the article may be giving undue weight to a non-magesterium Catholic position and also omits that theists reject intelligent design that contradicts evolution. It also omits that theists can reject it for reasons other than moral or ethical grounds, such as scientific grounds. My edit is at the bottom of [5] but is being rejected by only a few on [6]. If you think what I said has some meaning then pls do weigh in. Thanks to all. (CptKirk 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the edits here. I don't know about that intelligent design article, seems very busy. I would doubt being able to have any influence there. But I can take a look. The spelling is magisterium. PhilVaz 06:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move of this article to Catholic Church and evolution

Last year, a consensus was developed on Talk:Roman Catholic Church to name articles such as this one according to the pattern "Catholic church and X". For example, there is an article titled Catholic Church and ecumenism. Thus, this article should be named Catholic Church and evolution.

Yes, I understand that there is an issue between "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church". However, that issue should be settled at Talk:Roman Catholic Church, not here.

If there are no objections, I will move this article to the proposed title in the next few days.

--Richard 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I might concur with your reasoning, except the article is really about Evolution and Creationism, as a POV fork from both of those articles. This isn't a fork from the Catholic Church article. I wouldn't make a move until a lot of the editors of Evolution and Creationism articles weigh in. You might want to post your thoughts in both the main Evolution and Creationism articles to get some level of response. This is an article that overlaps two distinct projects, and there might be a tug of war. Orangemarlin 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Understood, will do. Thanks for the advice. --Richard 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
My vote is to leave this article at its current title. -- Cat Whisperer 19:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We're not really "voting" yet but I note your objection. Could you explain your reasoning especially in light of an agreement on Talk:Roman Catholic Church to title articles in this fashion? --Richard 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
My view is that the noun which is more important to the article should go first. I am not surprised that editors at Talk:Roman Catholic Church agreed that the Catholic Church is always more important than other nouns, regardless of what those nouns are, but I feel that this article is most aptly categorized under the "Evolution" banner. -- Cat Whisperer 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I just think it is worthy of note that, if a change is made, it should be "Roman Catholic Church and..." rather than "Catholic Church and..." becuase it is the proper name and more clearly identifies it. --IFire 14:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

I don't think there should be a paragraph about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in this article. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's teachings have been denounced by the Catholic Church. See here, here and here . Trounce 13:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That section appears to be a recent addition, and I agree it doesn't belong. Most of the article cites official church statements, which his writings are not. Gimmetrow 15:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church' section

I changed this section because it was an interpretation of the CCC and also removed the section based on Ott which is pre-Vatican II. The CCC references several creation topics in the index. The CCC does not cover anything on evolution. (Runwiththewind 15:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Paragraphs 159 on science and faith, paragraphs 283-284 on science, including evolution ("development") and the age of the earth and universe, are plainly stated. The Catechism covers evolution briefly there, and the main point is there is no problem with mainstream science. Everything I have quoted from Ott remains accurate teaching to this day. Ott says:
All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De Fide)
God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
Which of those are no longer De Fide? They are all still De Fide. An article on Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church should have something in it on creation and theistic evolution, since ultimately the article is about how the science of evolution, God, faith, and creation (not creationism but creation) is reconciled and fits with the theology and official teaching of the Catholic Church. PhilVaz 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The statement covers science as well as evolution itself, and a citation has been given stating that the CCC refers to evolution. If you have an attributal reliable source giving an alternative opinion, that statement can be added to give proportionate representation of your viewpoint in accordance with neutral point of view policy.. ..dave souza, talk 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
*First of all, this article is called Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. It is not called Creationism and the Roman Catholic Church. The section on creationism should go on Creationism, not here. It should be a redirected at best.
*You claim that the CCC refers to evolution but the statement does not say this. Which paragraph of the CCC mentions evolution? You cited a source but I cannot read it.
*The statement is also not a current post-Vatican II statement. The statement is based on a POV combination of some of the CCC (omitting others) and an interpretation of the pre-Vatican II work by Ott as an authority. Ott's work is not the position of the Church. The CCC is. (as a note Ott makes statements on evolution in his book that are outdated scientifically but this is also omitted.)
*The CCC makes no direct statement on evolution contrary to the opinion here.
*I believe the section as it stands is misleading. (Runwiththewind 20:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC))
Do you have a source for your assertions? As for the source, look under References for Akin, Jimmy (January 2004), "Evolution and the Magisterium", This Rock. Retrieved on 2007-08-14. .. dave souza, talk 20:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything I have read, from the original statements of the Roman Catholic Church on the matter, starting around 1910, and continuing in the 1950s, 1990s and 2000s, to the articles summarizing these statements in other WP:RS and WP:V sources, appears to agree with the original wording. I am not an expert on Catholicism, but when I read 10 articles that I trust that state things one way, and you come with vague claims that things are not that way, but another way, with no sources to back you up, where does that leave me?--Filll 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

*The article is not about creationism. I suggest taking it to the creationism page first of all. If the Catechism paragraph has a citation that alludes to evolution by the Akin source (I have no way of varifing it) then I suppose it should stay but including Ott's work, a pre-Vatican II publication, and implying that Ott's views are current is misleading. The CCC doesn't reference Ott either. (Runwiththewind 21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

You do not believe there is a connection between creationism and evolution? Hmmm....Look, there are a lot of views of the Catholic Church about evolution and creationism, and they have evolved over time. I, as a reader, want to know as much as I can about these views and how they have changed as a function of time. What is wrong with that?--Filll 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said I did not believe there is a connection. In fact I didnt make any statement on it. This is not the article for Catholic creationism. The place for your statement is that article, not this one. You should see that it gets support on the main article for that topic first before attempting to include it here. (Runwiththewind 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Huh? I am not trying to do any such thing. You want a fork like Catholic Creationism? You want to shove more material into the already overstuffed creationism article? We discuss the Catholic perspective in a number of articles in evolution, creationism, intelligent design and the creation-evolution controversy. This is the main central article for all of those on this particular issue. Maybe it should have a different title, but I don't personally think that is necessary. However, it is a bit presumptious of you to march in here with your grand total of 289 edits, only 106 on an actual article, and then presume to dictate to two long-standing editors with over 100 times as many edits as you, collectively, how these articles should be organized and what should go where. And make assorted unsourced claims ignoring WP:V and WP:RS, and barking out orders and engaging in edit warring. That is a bit much, IMHO. So...--Filll 00:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ott does seem out of place in the "post-Vatican II" section of the article. Would it be possible to move Ott's analysis of Catholic teaching to an earlier "pre-Vatican II" section? -- Cat Whisperer 01:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I eventually found the Catechism statement on evolution as interpreted by Jimmy Akin in 'This Rock' magazine Jan. 2004 [7]. While I do not have a problem including this in the article (and it probably should go in) this article is not a place for Creationism and the Roman Catholic Church or more appropriately Creation and the Roman Catholic Church. That should be delt with on the appropriate article. I have started the article and included the full index related references for creation from the CCC. (Runwiththewind 13:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
Well, at first glance that looks like a stub POV fork. You've not addressed the point that the Roman Catholic church supports Creationism, but has distanced itself from anti-evolution Creationism in the meaning which has been common since the 1980s, as stated in Ronald L. Numbers. Antievolutionists and Creationists. Creationism History. Counterbalance Meta-Library. Retrieved on 2007-08-15.. This article properly deals with Roman Catholic responses to anti-evolution. ... dave souza, talk 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This definitely sounds like a POV fork. The main article is only 30Kb. There seems to be no reason to make a separate POV fork. I disagree with this approach. I think that there is not enough material to justify two separate articles, which would be overlapping anyway.--Filll 14:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dave souza, the article Creation and the Roman Catholic Church included references and also states that However the Church has made guarded comments on Theistic evolution. So it has addressed the issue you say it did not. It also has the complete CCC references on creation, not just the POV ones selected for this article while omitting the rest. (Runwiththewind 15:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
Um, check the link, the Roman Catholic church supports Creationism (soul) if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps that appears somewhere in the paragraphs that you've listed as numbers. And is that the only place that teachings on Catholic Creationism are found? .. dave souza, talk 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
*Catholic creationism is officially taught through Catechism. See Creation and the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever statements occur outside of this are subject to debate, even statements made by Cardinals as you can plainly see, but let's get the official position right first (which should be done on the Creation and the Roman Catholic Church article). Which brings me to my main concern...
*This article is no place for a lengthy teaching on creationism. It is about evolution and the RCC. Creationism has entered here and not only that but what entered is controversial because it quotes dogma from a pre-Vatican II book that has no place in a post-Vatican II system of Catechism which is found in the CCC. If you take it to Creation and the Roman Catholic Church we can discuss it in more detail there. Right now Ott's teachings are not the ones in the CCC and I am starting to think that there is a traditionalist catholics motive behind including Ott's work here. The CCC teaches post-Vatican II Catholicism, not Ott.(Runwiththewind 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
The Creation and the Roman Catholic Church article is redundant. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church covers how the Church sees the science of evolution, and reconciles with God, creation, and faith. That is what this article is about as I see it. The Catechism is up to date, but Ludwig Ott gives us the De Fide (infallible) teachings in explicit language which remain the same today as they did pre-Vatican II. Ott is a standard orthodox Catholic source. Please do not ruin the article, it was just fine. All your spin-off articles should be deleted, they are not necessary. PhilVaz 06:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic teaching on creation

I added a dispute tag to the section because of the problem discussed in the previous section. The place for that section is on creationism and should be dealt with there first not here. (Runwiththewind 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] St. Augustine's "seminal reasons"

I think this article might benefit from a discussion of Augustine's "seminal reasons," which are sometimes pointed to as early indications of compatibility between Darwin's theory and Catholic teaching (discussed favorably here, here and here). This reading of Augusting is controversial, and is argued against here(.pdf), here, and especially here. I'll be happy to put up a draft paragraph but if someone else beats me to it, bravo! As far as placement is concerned, I would probably place it before Pius IX. The.helping.people.tick 05:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation, creationism and evolution

I think there is some confusion, which I have seen over the months on these topics.

  • Evolution is an observation of a certain kind of change. It is a scientific fact; that is, it is observable
  • The word evolution is also used for the explanation for these observed changes
  • Creation is a word used to describe an origin myth, of which there are hundreds if not thousands. Even Christianity has a wide range of these, fueled by the 4 creation accounts in the bible, 2 in Genesis, which disagree with each other in many details (Genesis 1 and 2). Catholics of course have their own interpretation of these conflicting biblical accounts, and sometimes introduce their own traditional materials to augument what is known from the bible, as well as scientific discoveries. Catholicism has been anti-biblical literalism since at least the time of Augustine, and possibly before.
  • Creationism is a movement or set of beliefs, at least in modern usage, that has several flavors. Some of those flavors of creationism conflict with scientific knowledge (both the data and the accepted explanations for these data). Some do not. Theistic evolution does not conflict with the scientific approach. Young Earth Creationism does conflict with the scientific approach. Many flavors of creationism conflict with each other, sometimes quite vehemently.

Antievolution is quite suitably part of this article on evolution and the Catholic Church. Some creationists are anti-evolution, and some are not. The Catholic Church is not anti-evolution, although it does make certain pronouncements about the soul of man, which is something that at the moment is not in the province of scientific investigations. The declarations of the Catholic Church about the soul are not in conflict with mainstream science. As far as we currently know, these statements about the soul have nothing to do with evolution, although quite often the Catholic Church will add them to statements about evolution that it makes.

As I survey some of the recent and advocated changes here, the recent stubby fork about the Catholic Church and Creation, the changes to the creationism article itself, I wonder if we are not introducing more confusion into this area than enlightenment, overall. --Filll 15:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You introduce confusion by referencing Ott's work here as the Catholic position on creationism. It isn't. Ott's book is from the 1950s (pre-Vatican II). It is not even aware of the 60 years worth of science since its publication. The CCC is aware of the development up until 1997. This article covers the modern development of evolution topics within the Church but the Church has not changed its position from the CCC. (Runwiththewind 20:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
Hey smart guy, which of these De Fide statements on creation (not creationISM but creation) of Ludwig Ott are NOT De Fide:
God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
BTW, I am not a traditionalist. I am a Vatican II Catholic that recognizes and believes De Fide teaching when I see it. What the Church has taught on creation does not change. Now answer the question: Which of these De Fide (infallible) statements from Ludwig Ott are no longer De Fide (infallible) teachings of the Roman Catholic Church? Again, I am not a traditionalist. Also there is a difference between a doctrine of "creation" and the bogus science behind "creationism" which you seem not to understand. The Catholic Church has a doctrine of creation that hasn't changed since Ludwig Ott. The Church rejects the bogus science of "creationism" (see anything by Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Raztinger/Pope Benedict XVI, or Cardinal Schonborn on "creationism" and you'll see they reject it). The name is PhilVaz and I've been helping to edit this article since 2005. Please do not ruin it. PhilVaz 07:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It also appears to me that you are confusing "creationism" (origin of the soul) with "creationism" (anti-evolution movements) with "creation" (origin beliefs). This is heading into a tremendous mess if you do not get these 3 ideas carefully understood and defined and separated. They are NOT the same thing.--Filll 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not confused about the Catholic teachings on creationism. I have stated several times that Catholic teachings on creationism are found in the CCC. You are the one who saying Ott's teachings on creation should also be included as current. This is a mistake. (Runwiththewind 21:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Please check your facts before you make outrageous assertions. I have NEVER EVER stated that Ott's teachings on creation, creationism (about the soul) or creationism (anti-evolution movements) should be accepted as current. Not once. Show me where I made such a claim with a diff, if you are so sure of it. At most I said I was interested in how the position of the Church changed over time. You think that is a claim that Ott is current officially sanctioned belief? ALL I am saying, is that as I watch your edits and organization and efforts to make stubby forks that probably should be deleted or reverted, is that I see some evidence of confusion about what you want to write. That is all. I have not challenged you at all except to ask you to exercise caution because I see some bad signs here.--Filll 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
  • The new section called Catholic teaching on creation includes a large section from Ott. Ott has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic teaching on creation. Catholic teaching on creation is done through Catechism, the CCC, not from a book by Ott as you have presented here.
  • You have included Ott in a post-Vatican II section. (Runwiththewind 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

If Ott's work is under a heading that gives an incorrect date or misleading impression about his writings, then it should appear under a separate heading, and perhaps should be repositioned in the article. There seem to have been some misunderstandings about what a couple of sources say: it should probably be noted in this article that Roman Catholic schools teach evolution without controversy on the basis that scientific knowledge does not extend beyond the physical, and scientific truth and religious truth cannot be in conflict.ref Jeff Severns Guntzel. National Catholic Reporter: Catholic schools steer clear of anti-evolution bias. Retrieved on 2007-08-15. Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are not in conflict, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church includes a positive comment about the theory of evolution, which is neither precluded nor required by the sources of faith. Human evolution is not a matter of Catholic religious teaching, and must stand or fall on its own scientific merits.ref>Akin, Jimmy (January 2004), “Evolution and the Magisterium”, This Rock, <http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp>. Retrieved on 15 August 2007  .. dave souza, talk 21:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Your revert from the changes now reflects the position that Ott is post-Vatican II. This is an error. The new heading you gave does not reflect the content about creationism. (Runwiththewind 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Edit warring is not going to get your way. I would ask you to please, talk it out here, and propose changes here. I forsee things heading in a very negative direction if you continue down this path. Please do not do this.--Filll 00:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Your revert from the changes also reflects the position that Ott is post-Vatican II. This is an error. The new heading you gave does not reflect the content about creationism. (Runwiththewind 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Response

Against my better judgement, I will respond to what I view as some outrageous statements:

  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Huh? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I am not on a soapbox. I just do not want us to confuse various issues, such as creation (origin beliefs), creationism (having to do with the soul) and creationism (anti evolution movements), which I am afraid we might, given what I have seen.

  • The new section called Catholic teaching on creation includes a large section from Ott. Ott has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic teaching on creation. Catholic teaching on creation is done through Catechism, the CCC, not from a book by Ott as you have presented here.
New section? If memory serves that section has been here since 2005. I put it there for the following reason: what Ludwig Ott states as De Fide is still De Fide. Again, an article on Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church should absolutely have something in it on creation. The Church can only teach on creation, it does not propose to teach anything on science. Now answer which of these are no longer De Fide teaching according to the Catechism:
God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
God has created a good world. (De Fide)
The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
God alone created the world. (De Fide)
God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)
Which of those are no longer De Fide (infallible) teachings according to the Catechism? PhilVaz 07:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if things are in the wrong place, the move them. If the wording "teaching" is incorrect, change it. I did not present it here. I did not write it. So...

  • You have included Ott in a post-Vatican II section. (Runwiththewind 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, not me. If you check the edit history here, I have hardly edited this article at all. I reference it in other articles. That is all.

I state again, since you seem to have conveniently ignored me the first time:

I have NEVER EVER stated that Ott's "teachings" (or statements or claims or discussion or arguments or expostion if you prefer) on creation (about origin beliefs), creationism ( about the soul) or creationism (anti-evolution movements) should be accepted as current. Not once. Show me where I made such a claim with a diff, if you are so sure of it.

If you cannot, then I will accept this as an admission that you are somewhat confused and mistaken about the situation here. No apologies necessary, however.--Filll 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the section with edits to Creation and the Roman Catholic Church. I left the redirect. (Runwiththewind 22:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your admission. As I said, no apologies are necessary. I would be very cautious about your restructuring of this entire article. I am not sure you are heading in a positive direction.-Filll 22:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you restored Ott as post-Vatican II, I can only say you are mistaken. Ott is pre-Vatican II. (Runwiththewind 03:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Deletion proposal of Creation and the Roman Catholic Church

To gather commuunity input about what looks like a very confused fork, I propose that we put it up for deletion and see what the consensus is. As I look at it, it is a confused disorganized mess with poorly defined terms and a confusion between the concepts of creationism, creation and creatianism.--Filll 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, DELETE that article on Creation and the RCC, it is redundant. We do not need an article on Creation and the RCC, Adam/Eve and the RCC, Genesis and the RCC, Creationism and the RCC, The Age of the Earth and the RCC, the Noachian Flood and the RCC, etc. This article on Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church can and should have perhaps a small section on creation and those related topics. The Church cannot propose any "teaching" on science or evolution, it can only choose to agree with the best science that's out there (i.e. Catechism 159, 283-284). It can only "teach" officially on creation which is in its domian of faith and morals (see the Vatican I definition on papal infallibility). And Ludwig Ott is a very technical book on what is De Fide, so why anyone would have a problem I don't understand. What the Church teaches De Fide on creation BEFORE Vatican II will not change AFTER Vatican II. PhilVaz 07:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ott and evolution

Why include Ott on creation but omit his coverage of evolution? (Runwiththewind 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

If his material on evolution is notable, then write about it here and let people take a look at it, instead of edit warring.--Filll 00:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I can include, I think it is very good. But as Run said (one of the few things I agree with what he said) Ludwig Ott may be OUT OF DATE on his material on evolution. Ott, however, is NOT out of date on his De Fide teaching on creation, since again what the RCC teaches De Fide BEFORE Vatican II on creation will not change AFTER Vatican II on creation. Ludwig Ott does have a decent section on evolution, including man's evolution, and shows that the Church does not have a problem with it. This was written originally in the 1950s as mentioned. Ludwig Ott is a STANDARD ORTHODOX CATHOLIC source for crying out loud. The version I am using is by TAN Books, 1974. NO ONE editing this article should have a problem with it. I produce all the main sections from Ott on creation and evolution in my article responding to a young-earther and geocentrist Robert Sungenis here Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation: Reply to Robert Sungenis. PhilVaz 08:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ott material was cut and paste

I found that the original Ott commentary was a copy and paste taken from [8]. (Runwiththewind 03:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Hey smart guy, it is my own site. No need to re-invent the wheel, since I've spent a good number of years studying this issue of "Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church" I think it is OK to use some of my own material. The material from Ott that is De Fide is what is cited, and my own summary and commentary from Ott. Again, a STANDARD ORTHODOX CATHOLIC source. PhilVaz 08:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If it was material protected by copyright, it can still be used with proper attribution. If it was plagiarism, the correct option is to edit it and summarize it, not delete it.--Filll 03:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is User:PhilVaz's website. What exactly is the problem with him using his material in two places? -- Cat Whisperer 12:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If he gave permission then I see no problem using it however that still doesn't change the problem of it being pre-Vatican II material in a post-Vatican II section. The article heading has now been changed to evolution instead of creation, yet the Ott content is clearly on creation. (pp.x BOOK TWO. GOD THE CREATOR. Section 1. The Divine Act of Creation. Section 2. The Divine Work of Creation.) The article here only includes the De Fide quotes, and omits the Sent. Certa quotes. That second section on The Divine Work of Creation is omitted because obviously it is entirely supernatural not scientific. (Runwiththewind 13:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

This pre-Vatican II argument you keep bringing up is IRRELEVANT. A De Fide Teaching REMAINS De Fide (infallible) AFTER Vatican II. Ludwig Ott is a standard orthodox Catholic source. PhilVaz 08:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
So we'll move it to a more appropriate section, following discussion to achieve consensus. .. dave souza, talk 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me, please edit and/or move the section. But an article on Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church should absolutely have something on creation, since the RCC officially can teach NOTHING on evolution. The RCC is not a scientific organization, it is a religious body, a Church. As I've said, the RCC can only choose to ACCEPT (or reject) the best science that is out there. A doctrine of creation is the only thing the RCC claims to be able to teach in this area, and since the RCC believes in God, that is appropriate. That teaching on creation can and has developed and be further nuanced according to the best science. I think I am stating the obvious, but sometimes people forget these things. PhilVaz 08:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed one part that said "polygenism... the scientific evidence supports [it]." to "is against [it]". Not only genetic evidence (ex. mitochondrial DNA) but even rudimentary reflection shows that, if you just go back far enough, every population is virtually guaranteed to have a single ancestor. And this result is thoroughly general, not unique to humans. So polygenism is in no way at all supported by evidence... quite the contrary. I recommend striking out the entire debate about polygenism because it gives the mistaken impression, which the Catholic church appears to have, that science favors polygenism. This debate was essentially ended in the scientific community over 50 years ago with the discovery of DNA as the basis for inheritance and only shows how out of touch Catholicism is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.214.154 (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polygenism is pre-Vatican II not post-Vatican II

I put a dispute tag on the Polygenism section. Some of that section should be under the pre-Vatican II section. It also is copy and paste from [9]. By the way the author of that article just needed to invoke the CCC as the teaching of the Catholic Church and not other sources (footnotes can be used but only the quoted parts). It seems to have been a debate between some traditionalist catholics promoting American creationism and someone trying to pratice their post-Vatican II faith. Encyclicals like Humani Generis are pre-Vatican II encyclicals that are not even referenced by the CCC. A Pope, such as John Paul II, might quote parts of some pre-Vatican II encyclicals but that doesn't mean the whole pre-vatican II encyclical should overide Vatican II or the CCC. (Runwiththewind 10:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] This article in no longer about Evolution and the RCC but Theistic Evolution and the RCC.

The article has deviated from the main topic of evolution and the RCC. Evolution, not theistic evolution, should be the subject of this article and theistic evolution should be covered in another article called Theistic evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. This article is trying to conclude with theistic evolution yet evolution is not theistic, it is scientific. (Runwiththewind 13:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

PhilVaz will respond up here. I'll state the obvious again: The RCC cannot, does not, nor will not propose to teaching anything on SCIENCE. If macroevolution is true -- which I certainly believe it is because the scientific evidence for it is overwhelming -- the RCC can only choose to accept (or reject) that science. But the science of origins has philosophical / metaphysical implications, and that's where "theistic evolution" comes in. I agree that theistic evolution is NOT a science, it is a theological interpretation or philosophical position that COMBINES God with evolution. And since the RCC is a religious body, a Church that believes in God, the only kind of "evolution" the RCC can ultimately accept, considering ALL that the RCC has taught De Fide on creation, is a "theistic" kind. It has no problems with the science of biology, geology, paleontology, genetics, or any of the related sciences as such.
Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna has stated: "....Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history's most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the 'evolution' paradigm has become, so to speak, a 'master key,' extending itself within many fields of knowledge....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. In the citations given above (from Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter Atkins), it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one's territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews....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." (2 October 2005 Catechetical Lecture)
I agree with Schonborn at least in that paragraph. I didn't agree with his July 2005 NY Times editorial, but I think he has cleared up his statement a bit since then. But that is something we can debate. PLEASE no more articles on Creation and the RCC, Creationism and the RCC, Theistic Evolution and the RCC, Theistic Meteorology and the RCC, Theistic Physics and the RCC, Theistic Geology and the RCC, etc OK I'm going a bit overboard here. Do you get my point? Evolution and the RCC CAN cover all the "creation" and "theistic evolution" related topics, hopefully briefly. PhilVaz 08:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Look I have tried to be fairly nice to you. However, your efforts to create a lot of narrow POV forks off this one article are ludicrous. This article is about the relationship between the RCC and evolution. In all its forms. Including, but not limited to,
  • anti-evolution movements
  • evolution as a science
  • biblical literalism and evolution
  • creationism and evolution
  • intelligent design
  • creation, or origin myths, as understood by the RCC and its relationship with the scientific understanding of evolution
  • theistic evolution, which basically says God chose to use evolution to create
  • the introduction of souls into humans (creatianism)

All these forks will be deleted. You are wasting your time and annoying people by turning this entire area into a huge mess. Just try to learn a bit, and do not fight so hard against the consensus. If you do not, I predict things will not go well.--Filll 13:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution exists, science investigates evolution and proposes explanations as to how it works. Theistic evolution is a term coined to describe the approach to evolution taken by many people and religious bodies, including the Roman Catholic Church. This article is about evolution and the church, and so covers the approach the church currently takes, which has been described as theistic evolution. These wholesale deletions, pov forks and lack of providing and discussing useful references look very much like tendentious editing, with a disruptive effect that has to stop. Runwiththewind, please take the time to achieve consensus by persuading others in a civil manner that follows etiquette. .. dave souza, talk 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Theistic evolution is not evolution. This article has a conflict of terminology. Clearly it has departed from evolution and become Theistic evolution and the Roman Catholic Church.(Runwiththewind 16:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC))


We cannot make a fork for every tiny miniscule detail and distinction you personally care to make. If we did, this article would turn into 50 articles, which is not particularly appropriate or useful to anyone. You do not WP:OWN this article. You appear to be engaging in disruptive editing, I fear, which can have negative consequences for your future editing priveleges. It is true that theistic evolution is not evolution. But you will admit that they are related ? Just like evolution is related to creationism and to creatianism by some interpretations, and creation (origin myths) and to the attitude of the RCC to science and to the presumed age of the earth and to the Big Bang and all kinds of other things. Some of these are directly related, and some are indirectly related. We cannot have a separate article for each thing. Wikipedia will be destroyed if we do that, and the articles will be useless and narrow. On Wikipedia, we decide things based on consensus. If you choose to continue to ignore consensus and flaunt the culture and rules of appropriate editing behavior on Wikipedia, I fear there will not be a happy future for you and editing on Wikipedia. You do understand the consequences of continuing to push your narrow view against the consensus of other editors? Your fork articles can and will be deleted. There can be community action taken against you for edit warring and disruptive editing, such as banning or blocking. I am asking again, as nicely as I can, for you to try to behave in a reasonable fashion. Otherwise, things might become negative for you here.--Filll 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Runwiththewind, please study The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie Scott, National Center for Science Education, to find out what theistic evolution means. This article has a simpler name which can cover a broader aspect of the RCC's views on evolution, and as such is the appropriate name for the Wikipedia article. Your creation of Theistic evolution and the Roman Catholic Church in order to describe it as a pov section violates Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, which as you'll note can lead to a block. Please follow Wikipedia:Consensus, and discuss your proposals here in a civil and constructive way. ... dave souza, talk 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I know what theistic evolution means thank you. It is not science, it is theology. Evolution is a science. This article title should be based on pre-Vatican II and Vatican II comments on the science of evolution since they differ dramatically but has also clearly branched into something else, namely the theology of theistic evolution. There is no clear division on this in the article.
  • Evolution does not cover theistic evolution. Theistic evolution covers evolution.
  • A lot of information on this article clearly violates wikipolicy. There is no citation for much of it.
  • I have personally pointed out the problem of the overlapping of pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II material.
  • I have used wikipolicy to point out problems and added dispute tages on the parts which had no citations and where clearly copy and pasted from web sites on the internet (even if the editor owned the web site we still have no way of knowing). I should not have to undergo any threat of blocking for using wikipolicy. I have not broken any rules thank you very much. Please deal with the topics at hand.
  • A consensus still requires wikipolicy.(Runwiththewind 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
Evolution is not a science, it is a scientific theory in the field of biology. (I in no way belittle evolution by calling it a theory, as I actually know what that means. It is one or more hypotheses that have been investigated and have enough supporting evidence and observations to be useful in understanding the subject of investigation and to predict future related events.) As, for the most part, the Catholic Church is not a scientific institution but a religious body, by definition, its primary response to the scientific investigation would be theological reflections and interpretations of the advances made in the science. Trying to remove thology from an article that includes the name of a Church in its title is, I think, very narrow minded, and makes the article less usefull to the readers. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, which means it should include "information on all branches of knowledge," including theology. Gentgeen 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Evolution is not a science? Which part of evolution is not scientific? A theory contains facts without gaps. Evolution is a fact. (Runwiththewind 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Hmmm...you might benefit from reading Evolution as theory and fact. But then again, maybe not.--Filll 20:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I already know evolution is a fact and theory and a science. According to User:Gentgeen it is not a science. I disagree. It is a science and it is not a theology. Gentgeen's understanding of evolution as not being a science is exactly why this article is a big problem. His view represents the misunderstanding this article creates by not creating a division between the science of evolution and the theology of theistic evolution. I also have my doubts over how seriously some people here take the creation doctrines found in the CCC which I why I have included them in the section below. (Runwiththewind 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
Good so far, but it's reasonable to say that evolution isn't "a science", it's a group of facts that are assessed and explained by science. This article is about how the Catholic church deals with the fact and the science, which essentially involves theology. The approach has changed over the years, but for a long time now has been, as you say, the theology of theistic evolution. The science of evolution is independent of the church, and is dealt with in other articles. If you have proposals for improving the structure of this article, discussion of them will be most welcome. .. dave souza, talk 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Evolution is not a science. Science is a system to increase human knowldge in a number of fields of study, which in English often contain the greek suffix -logy (eg. biology, geology, zoology). These fields of study are themselves commonly called sciences, with the scientific sub-field most closely related to this article being evolutionary biology. The suffix -tion instead means "an action or an instance of being", so evolution means "the action of evolving". It is a process that current scientific theory uses to explain and predict many phenonimina of biology and other life sciences. So while evolution is a useful process to explain many events in several scientific fields of study, it in itself is not a science.
I never said evolution was a theology, as theology is also a field of study (just one that typically doesn't use the scientific method), and evolution, as I've already established, is not. However, the theological study of this process as currently understood in biology is a valid, and I think essential, topic for this article. If we have an article entitled "scientific theory foo and the Bar Religious Body" and do not include the theological teachings of said religious body in regard to the field, we are not presenting a complete article and are doing a disservice to the readers. Gentgeen 21:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Here again is the claim from User:Gentgeen that Evolution is not a science. I will ask it again. Which part of evolution is not scientific? Here is a statement from Berkely that Evolution is a science. [10](Runwiththewind 21:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
Please read your source carefully, and note the missing article. Evolution is not a science, evolution as a theory is part of science and is scientifically valid. To quote, "Misconception: “Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.” Response: Evolution is observable and testable." ... dave souza, talk 21:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay I see what you mean. Let me rephrase it then. Evolution is scientific. Theistic Evolution is theology. (Runwiththewind 21:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
Ah, I think I now understand part of the problem. You are assuming that because I assert that evolution is not a science, that I'm aslo asserting that it is not scientific, which I am not. I clearly state in my responses that the process of evolution is widely used in scientific fields of study, and is therefore scientific itself. But, I will also continue to assert that the theological teachings, reflections, and studies of evolution are an important, and essential, componet of this particular article. If this article was "Evolutionary hisotry of the Giant Fruit Bat", I would agree that the theological teachings of Pastafarians would not be appropiate to the topic, but in "Evolution and the Catholic Church", to exclude theological teachings is to present an incomplete, and therefore not encyclopedic, coverage of the topic. Gentgeen 21:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. The division should be made between the science of evolution and theology of theistic evolution. I noted that [11] says that The fact is that at this juncture it does not look like evolution can be a subject of Catholic teaching. (Runwiththewind 21:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Creation

[edit] Vatican II creation

The current teachings on Catholic Creation (theology) by the Roman Catholic Church are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church by referencing the index topics of creation[1] and the world[2]. Teachings about creation include paragraphs 198, 258, 280, 283-289, 291-94, 296, 299, 300, 301, 314-319, 320, 327, 338, 339-347, 349, 353-356, 374, 380, 381, 400, 668, 2415, 2456 and 2415-2418.[3]. Teachings about the world include paragraphs 295, 325, 326, 337, 341, 373, 408, 450 and 677.[4].

BTW, yes that is indeed all the teaching of the Church on creation, assuming you have all the paragraph numbers right, but you are not suggesting copying/pasting into this article all those paragraphs verbatim, correct? If not, then A SUMMARY is sufficient. PhilVaz 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam & Eve

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Catholics are to believe in Adam & Eve as real people and the fall of man as a real event. "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).[5].

  1. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 1997. pp.771-772
  2. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 1997. pp.821-822
  3. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 1997. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
  4. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 1997. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
  5. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church 1997. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Clearly parts of Genesis are not held as mythological but real events.

(Runwiththewind 20:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Yes, and parts are figurative, symbolical, allegorical. The "creation" of Adam/Eve is said to be "willed by God." The word "mythological" has too much baggage associated with it and the Catechism itself does not use that word, but it does use the words I've mentioned.
337. God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work," concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value, and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God." [Vatican II LG 36] (see also paragraphs 339, 342, 345 which refer to the "six days")
338. Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God's word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun. [footnote refers to St. Augustine, De Genesi adv Man 1, 2, 4: PL 34, 175]
362. The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolical language when it affirms that "then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." [Genesis 2:7] Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
369. Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. [cf. Genesis 2:7, 22] Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God." In their "being-man" and "being-woman," they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.
375. The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice." [cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511] This grace of original holiness was "to share in....divine life." [cf. Vatican II LG 2]
390. The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
396. God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." [Genesis 2:17] The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" [Genesis 2:17] symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
The point is that everything that exists owes its existence to God, however He chose to do it. There are other paragraphs that imply at least some of the language in Genesis 1-3 is figurative or symbolical. In short, Adam/Eve may be interpreted as literal people and the Fall may be considered "historical" in the Catechism, but the Catechism itself says much language in the Genesis 1-3 story is FIGURATIVE / SYMBOLICAL / ALLEGORICAL. PhilVaz 07:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something, but my understanding was that official catholic doctrine was that most of Genesis was allegorical and figurative. It is not meant as a literal scientific textbook or a history book. In fact, I am pretty sure that is the view. So why are you claiming otherwise? Did the RC church sometime decide to subscribe to biblical literalism?--Filll 20:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite so. The terms "mythological" and "real events" obviously need interpretation as to just what's meant. While it's nice of you to link to a long list of chapters, it would be of more benefit to cite specific examples together with links to explanatory commentary by reliable sources. Please note that the Catechism is a primary source, and for interpretation we have to look to a secondary source to avoid original research which can't be accepted. .. dave souza, talk 21:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As I suspected, you both have don't see or understand the creation side of Catholic teaching. Here it is from one of your own sources. [12] Oh and by the way, just so you remember, this is theology and not science. (Runwiththewind 21:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
That's a bit better. I make no claims to understanding Catholic theology, but am working my way to understanding policies including WP:V, which are what counts here. As you suggest, there's scientific truth and religious truth, and this article has to explain to people who aren't theologians or versed in the Catechism how the two relate in the context of evolution. .. dave souza, talk 21:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The way to do it is to understand first of all that there is pre-Vatican II statements and there are post-Vatican II statements and that the CCC is the official teachings of the Catholic Church for Vatican II Catholics unless the Holy See issues some changes or ammendments to the CCC (as they did in the past for 1997 update). Second, evolution is scientific, theistic evolution is not scientific. This article is about the science of evolution and the RCC. Clearly the RCC cannot accept evolution as per [13]... The fact is that at this juncture it does not look like evolution can be a subject of Catholic teaching.(Runwiththewind 21:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
There is indeed a pre-Vatican II Church, and a post-Vatican II Church, and statements made pre-Vatican II, and statements made post-Vatican II, but what that Church TEACHES De Fide doesn't change. Anything De Fide BEFORE Vatican II, will be De Fide AFTER Vatican II. That is where Ludwig Ott is useful since he gives the De Fide (infallible) teachings in explicit language, taken from the Popes and the Councils (Denzinger or Denz is another source that does this). The CCC Catechism is not as useful in that area since it doesn't provide De Fide statements in explicit language as Ott does (there are hundreds of them). The CCC presents the teaching of the Church in less technical language. There are no De Fide statements in the Catechism, except where it directly quotes the Councils (e.g. Trent, Vatican I, etc). I also agree with you that "theistic evolution" is not scientific per se, but this article is about Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church, and the Roman Catholic Church is not an atheist organization. The Church believes in God and creation, so both of those MUST be reconciled with evolution if the Church wants to be consistent with its previous De Fide teaching on creation. In fact, the Church can only make De Fide statements on creation, NOT on evolution. Science is outside the Church's domain of teaching (again, Catechism 159, 283-284 will help there). If you check the history of this article before I got here (2005), that is what this article has always been about: Evolution, science, God, creation, faith, theology and teaching of the Popes and the Church on these subjects. We do not need a Creation and the RCC article, an Adam/Eve and the RCC article, a Genesis and the RCC article, a Noachian Flood and the RCC article, etc since those are redundant. These topics can all get A mention here in Evolution and the RCC article if desired. PhilVaz 06:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent> We're back to defining terms. Evolution can be, and is, a subject of teaching by Catholics in Catholic schools or in universities. However, as that source says,

Basically, a scientific claim can have one of three basic relations with the sources of faith: (1) It can be required by them, (2) It can be precluded by them, or (w) It can be free with respect to them....
Until such time as the magisterium would either reverse its twentieth-century finding that human evolution is not precluded by the deposit of faith or would make a new finding that it is required by the deposit, human evolution as a matter that is free with respect to the sources. It is a matter that must stand or fall on its own scientific merits; it is not a matter of Catholic teaching.

Evolution isn't a matter of Catholic religious teaching. We should either include this in the article as a quotation, or give an accurate summary of the point. .. dave souza, talk 22:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Catholic schools in the US, especially at the college or university level, teach evolution in science courses. If the Jesuits at Saint Louis University are on board, that's enough for me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Runwiththewind, whatever the merits of your suggestions may be, this rampant forking has got to stop. ornis (t) 23:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this article was just fine before this Run person got here. What is with these "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed." Disputed by who besides Run? We have been quoting nothing but the Catechism, the Popes, and official statements of Catholic doctrine (yes that includes the De Fide statements from Ludwig Ott) since 2005 (when I got here). I suggest deleting those "factual accuracy" disputes since there is nothing to dispute. PhilVaz 06:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I am going to show you again why this article is misleading and the confusion is evident although I think User:dave souza appears to get my point.
User:PhilVaz said ‘’In short, Adam/Eve may be interpreted as literal people and the Fall may be considered "historical" in the Catechism,…’’ This is not what the Church teaches, Phil. You may want to read [14]. Adam & Eve are defined as real people by the Church and nothing less than this.
RESPONSE: A Catholic Answers tract, in case you didn't notice, is not a De Fide (infallible) teaching of the Church. I'm not saying Catholic Answers doesn't present solid orthodox Catholic teaching, but it also doesn't represent De Fide teaching. Besides, this Wikipedia article on Evolution and the RCC need not even mention Adam/Eve. This will come up in a discussion of "polygenism" vs. "monogenism" however. This article is about the science of evolution, and the RCC's reaction to the science, etc. It need not deal with Adam/Eve, Eve created from a rib (or "side") of Adam, the temptation by the Devil, the Fall of Mankind, the Tree of Life, or how to interpret Genesis. These are theological topics that need not concern us here. They can be mentioned in passing, but they need not concern this article. PhilVaz 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
That Catholic Answers page on Adam and Eve and Evolution [15] contains a post-Vatican II nihil obstat and an imprimatur granted in 2004. It presents ‘’solid orthodox teaching’’ with the view of Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum and Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego. That page specifically deals with Adam and Eve because it is central to the topic of evolution and what the Church believes. It concerns evolution and the RCC. Anyway your previous view was that Adam/Eve may be interpreted as literal, when in fact you must interpret it as literal. I hope that article cleared up that for you.
I still say a CA tract is not De Fide. I can turn your statements back around: You have no mandate from the Holy See to present a tract from Catholic Answers as the teaching of the Church. Ludwig Ott also has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, 7 Oct 1954. The CA tract doesn't clear up the issue entirely, but it does a good job. Hey I'm a big fan of Catholic Answers, don't get me wrong. But if we can't agree that De Fide (infallible dogma) statements are the most authoritative teaching in the Church, then we definitely have a strong disagreement here. "By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such." (Ott, page 4) And, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith [De Fide] which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching." (Ott, page 4) The CCC Catechism will tell you the same thing, in its section on the Pope and the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church (paragraphs 888ff). The CCC Catechism, paragraph 891 says: "When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed' [i.e. De Fide dogma] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.' This infallibility extends as far as the desposit of divine Revelation itself." That is what I'm talking about, that is what Ludwig Ott is talking about. Not everything in the Catechism is De Fide (infallible dogma). That's why it is important to have a LIST of the De Fide (infallible dogma) statements of the Church. Can't you agree? A Catholic Answers tract is not De Fide, and everything in the Catechism itself is not De Fide. As for Adam/Eve, it depends on what you mean by "literal" -- 6000 years ago literal? Created from "dust" literal? Without belly buttons literal? With no evolution of the body literal? The Popes from at least Pius XII, John Paul II (see his commentary on Genesis in "Theology of the Body"), and Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI (see his commentary on Genesis) allows for the evolution of the body, and does not take Genesis literally. Also John Paul II in his Cosmology and Fundamental Physics, and Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger: "The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God (cf. Genesis 2:7), which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are." (In the Beginning... cited in the article). No those are not De Fide either, but they present accurately the mind of the Popes on these issues. That Adam/Eve evolved from previous hominids, and were the first human beings with created souls, in that sense, yes literal. The Catholic Answers tract allows for that as well. PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Ott’s imprimatur is pre-Vatican II. The CA page references the CCC. The page was used to conform with wikipolicy WP:V however Catholic teaching is strictly from the CCC as per Fidei depositum. You have added to the term [De Fide dogma] to the CCC paragraph 891. It doesn’t exist there. That is your interpretation. There is no footnote pointing to Ott either. Catholic teachings are from the CCC. If they wanted to present De Fide as per Ott they would have done so. They did it there way, not yours. If you are teaching Catholicism outside of the CCC then you need to show a post-Vatican II apostolic constitution granting you that right. Your claim that Fidei depositum isn’t good enough is not what JPII said. Neither JPII or Benedict XVI support evolution. The CCC does not directly support evolution either. Outside of this they claim to support theistic evolution but teaching Catholicism is strictly bound to the CCC. Fidei depositum makes that clear. (Runwiththewind 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
The teachings of the post-Vatican II RCC are in the CCC. There is no mandate from the Church to use any other source for RCC teaching. See Fidei depositum. (Runwiththewind 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
RESPONSE: What I said is the De Fide teachings of the Church pre-Vatican II do not change, and that Ludwig Ott is a solid source for learning those De Fide teachings in explicit, compact, easy to understand language. I don't disagree that the CCC is a "sure norm for the faith" (JPII). PhilVaz 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You don’t have any mandate from the Holy See to use Ott to teach the faith. Sorry, but that is the way JPII set things up in Fidei depositum, not me. Ott is a nice book to have for private study. Teachings of the faith are found in the CCC. (Runwiththewind 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
I give the same answer as above, the CCC Catechism itself makes a distinction between ordinary teaching and De Fide dogma. Ott is not only a nice book, it gives us, explicitly, the list of De Fide teachings. Not all teachings in the CCC are De Fide. For a precise list of what the RCC does teach De Fide on creation, I have compiled this helpful article. These De Fide teachings are not contradicted in the CCC Catechism, they are all re-affirmed but with less technical language than Ott. PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Then the CCC is what is to be used, not Ott. I have read no other Apostolic constitution to replace Fidei depositum. Can you show it? You can quote Ott as much as you want in a pre-Vatican II section but you have to give reason for it other than just a POV that Ott is great. You make the language used by the CCC a minor issue. It is not according to Fidei depositum.(Runwiththewind 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
If you define doctrine from pre-Vatican II books then it cannot be included under a post-Vatican II section that is supposed to use the CCC.
RESPONSE: I'll agree, but the section was (before you got here) on Catholic teaching on creation. I think a small section on creation is needed in an article about Evolution and the RCC since the RCC is a religious body that believes in God, and has a specific teaching on creation that must be reconciled with evolution. That doesn't mean we have to go through all of the Catechism on creation, but just an overview. You removed that section on creation, and that's when De Fide statements from Ott suddenly were put in the post-Vatican II section. So it was all your fault. It was just fine before you got here. PhilVaz 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The complete teachings of the CCC on creation and the world should be given, not half or a partial or even a summary. That is not how the CCC presents it.
The evidense from the history section shows that Ott’s statements appear in the Post-Vatican II section from your own last edits on 08:13, 5 July 2007 [16]. The fact that they are under a post-Vatican II section is not my fault as you claim. It seems to be yours. (Runwiththewind 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
The complete teachings of the CCC should NOT and CANNOT be given, just as the complete opinions of the Church on evolution CANNOT be given. This Wikipedia article is not the Catechism. That would make the article far too long. A summary is sufficient, on evolution and creation. I'll stand corrected on the edit. The Catholic teaching on creation section was added by me, I think back in 2005, and I did not notice it is indeed under "3" so post-Vatican II. It could be in its own section "4". But at least a section on creation I think should be included, but it need not be called "creation" it can be called "Catholic teaching and evolution" or some such as it is now. PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Now you understand the purpose of forking to another article. If the article gets too big, then we can fork and give a summary here. However just bumping in Ott, pre-Vatican II, as post-Vatican II, to make things easier is wrong according to Fidei depositum.(Runwiththewind 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
The CCC quotes Denzinger (who is the bases for Ott’s work). However Vatican II has clearly selected from that work but no longer teaches post-Vatican II Catholics to use it. Fidei depositum teaches to use the CCC. You need a Vatican II mandate to present anything pre-Vatican II as the teachings of Vatican II.
RESPONSE: Fine, the sections in the CCC on science/faith, and science/evolution/God are 159, 283-284 and they were quoted before you got here. What I've said about Ludwig Ott throughout this discussion still stands: what Ott quotes as De Fide before Vatican II is still De Fide after Vatican II. What is De Fide (infallible) is very relevant. PhilVaz 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
They where quoted in a section called ‘’Catholic teaching on creation’’ which was renamed ‘’Catholic teaching on evolution’’ by someone else here after I pointed out the problem with it. Right now that section does not make any sense. The CCC teaches creation and the world in the paragraphs I quoted above. You have no mandate from the Holy See to teach creation from Ott. That is a POV. See Fidei depositum. (Runwiththewind 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
I have no problem with the title as "Catholic teaching and evolution." We both have a mandate from the Holy See to teach ACCURATELY and with PRECISION the Catholic faith, whether that be the Catechism or Ludwig Ott. "This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See." (Fidei Depositum, intro to the CCC Catechism, JPII) That would certainly apply to Ludwig Ott, a teaching source that has been used in seminaries and elsewhere for 50 years. It was republished in 1974 by Tan Books, so post-Vatican II as well. The Catechism (paragraphs 888ff), as I've said, makes the same distinction that Ott does between ordinary teaching and De Fide infallible dogma of the magisterium. Everything in the Catechism is not De Fide infallible dogma, that is where Ott is useful providing us the LIST of De Fide infallible dogma. PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no mandate to use Ott after Vatican II. Ott's book is not a Catechism. You would have to prove the Apostolic See approved it as such before making that statement. (Runwiththewind 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC))


The Catholic Church clearly has teachings on creation and the world as I have listed above from the CCC. The Church has not rejected these teachings. A statement on creation should come from the Catechism using the index. There is no Vatican II mandate to use anything else.
RESPONSE: Using the "index" ? What if the index is not complete? Again, we don't need to bring in everything the Church teaches or has taught about creation, just an overview. That overview was presented (by me) as De Fide statements from Ludwig Ott's book, and that was perfectly sufficient before you got here. Ott is very useful in this area presenting in precise language what is De Fide (infallible) and what is not. The Catechism you have to dig a little more since it isn't a systematic listing of infallible teachings like Ott is. PhilVaz 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Your view on the index not being complete is a POV. Fidei depositum makes no such claim. The CCC contains a Imprimi Potest from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger at the start of it.
No, its clear the index is not complete. That is not POV, that is a fact. You have to DIG into the Catechism itself to find all the teachings that are relevant for the subject you are researching, if you want to be thorough and fair to the Catechism. You can't just "go by the index." PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That is your own POV. I am sorry but there is no statement in the Catechism or from the Holy See to the effect that the Catechism index is incomplete. If you find errors that is your private business. (Runwiththewind 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC))


Your view that a De Fide selection from Ott as an authority on infallible teachings is not what is taught by the CCC. That is a POV. Consult Fidei depositum. If JPII wanted you to use Ott he would have said so. He didn’t. He said use the CCC. (Runwiththewind 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
I've provided the distinction made in the Catechism itself (paragraph 891) that what is De Fide (infallible dogma) is different from ordinary teaching. Not everything in the Catechism is De Fide. That is not POV, that is a fact. And not everything in OTT is De Fide either, but he gives us the LIST of De Fide teachings. I provided some of those on creation in our article Evolution and the RCC. There are about 30 such statements in Ott on creation, some De Fide, some lesser authority. And these are all based on the precise technical language of the Councils or Popes. BTW, Fidei depositum doesn't say a lot of the things you are claiming either. It is simply an introduction to the CCC Catechism which John Paul II calls "a sure norm of the faith." I've read it. PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Fidei depositum is an instruction to use the CCC by Pope John Paul II. If you don't want to teach from it, then that is your own private business but JPII says otherwise. (Runwiththewind 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC))


The Catholic Church does not see that evolution can be the subject of Church teaching. [17]
RESPONSE: Again, an article from This Rock magazine is not De Fide, but we can agree Jimmy Akin knows his stuff. I've said throughout this discussion, evolution can be either accepted or rejected by the Church since she cannot teach on science, that is outside her domain of teaching (Catechism CCC 283-284 says this explicitly). She can teach on creation, and has. PhilVaz 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody said Akin was De Fide. It is just we using WP:V and Ott is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches post-Vatican II. I think you need to consult Fidei depositum on how to teach the faith. Anyhow what Akin says needs to be made clearer at the introduction to this article. (Runwiththewind 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
I agree the Church cannot teach on science, and that should be made clear at the beginning. The Church can only choose to agree with the best science that exists. She can only "teach" on creation which is in the domain of "faith and morals" (Vatican I definition). PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes (Runwiththewind 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
Theistic evolution is a totally different topic to evolution. Like User:dave souza understand… ‘’Evolution isn't a matter of Catholic religious teaching. We should either include this in the article as a quotation, or give an accurate summary of the point. ..,’’
RESPONSE: Theistic evolution is a philosophical position about God and evolution, while evolution itself is the science. The Church has a position on both, and both should be mentioned: the science and how the Church reconciles its teaching on creation with the science. That is where "theistic evolution" comes in. What is the big deal here? This is not hard to understand and you shoudn't have any problem. PhilVaz 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The article needs to explain that at the start. There is no clear indication that the Church cannot teach evolution as a matter of faith. There is also no clear indication that theistic evolution is a theology/philosophy and is not scientific. But even the topic of theistic evolution and the RCC is not clear. See next as to why. (Runwiththewind 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
I agree, we should make this clear at the beginning. I also agree there is debate on exactly what the Church's opinion IS on evolution, but we've already quoted the best statements from the Popes, Councils, and Catechisms, on the subject. PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Good. (Runwiththewind 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
Theistic evolution doesn’t even appear to be the subject of Catholic teaching either. The CCC has no comment on this. What we are reading are the opinions of clergy, not Church teaching. That needs to be understood clearer.
RESPONSE: If you read the Catechism CCC paragraphs 159, and 283-284 that is basically a "theistic evolution" position. The 2004 ITC statement is also as close as you can get on a modern "teaching" of the Catholic Church on the science of evolution and a "theistic evolution." But again, ultimately the Church can only make De Fide statements on creation, not on evolution, as I've said. PhilVaz 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Further, when Akin says it can't be the subject of Catholic teaching, he means De Fide infallible dogma. The domain of the magisterium is "faith and morals" only (from Vatican Council I's definition), not science. The Church can have an OPINION or POSITION on the topic of "theistic evolution" but this is a philosophical position, not a teaching on "faith and morals" and hence cannot be made Catholic teaching or De Fide infallible dogma. PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Akins doesn't replace the CCC. Akins is just a source meeting WP:V guidelines. He could be wrong. (Runwiththewind 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC))


To say that CCC teaches theistic evolution is a POV. The CCC makes statements on science but doesn’t use the term evolution at all. Only Akin appears to a be a source for this. If we have only statements made by clergy on theistic evolution then it needs to be clear that these are just statements on what the clergy believes as is not what the Church actually teaches. They are two different things. This article needs to be rewritten for much of it. There is work here to do.(Runwiththewind 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
A whole re-write is not necessary, just a few sentences in the introduction should be sufficient on how to understand the rest. The main thing to add is the Church cannot "teach" on science, as that is not the domain of the magisterium, which is only "faith and morals." As for theistic evolution, depends on how you define your terms. If you define "theistic evolution" as simply the position that one accepts the science of evolution and believes in God, the RCC is clearly "theistic evolution" and the Catechism presents that (CCC 159, 283-284) -- but there are many shades of interpretation within that philosophical position. If you define "creationism" as someone who believes in God the Creator, then the RCC is "creationist" as well. But I do not define "creationism" in that manner, I define it as classic young-earth creationism. PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The Church clearly believes that death entered the world because of the fall of Adam & Eve and not before it. Paragraph 400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. How do you explain this with evolution? That the first homo sapien was evolved to live forever? (Runwiththewind 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC))


OrangeMarlin, I will stop forking. Nobody is saying that evolution is not scientific. It is just not religious teaching and science class is not religion class. (Runwiththewind 09:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
RESPONSE: Thank goodness, because those forks were ridiculous and you appeared to be just wasting everyone's time with them, not helping with the article. PhilVaz 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don’t think pointing out what the CCC teaches on creation and the world was ridiculous. I also don’t think pointing out that the Church believes that Adam & Eve are real people was ridiculous either. In fact it revealed something to you and others here, that was not previously understood.(Runwiththewind 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC))
Pointing out what the Church teaches on creation is exactly what I was trying to do within the article. Having forks on Creation and the RCC, Creationism and the RCC, Theistic Evolution and the RCC are redundant and ridiculous when taken to extremes. None of these extra articles are needed since I agree with you that science is science, theology is theology, and philosophy is philosophy. Theistic evolution is a philosophical position that combines God and evolution, and that can be mentioned in the article on Evolution and the RCC. As for Adam and Eve, as I've already pointed out, they were "real people" who evolved from earlier hominids. They were the first human beings with souls. BTW, I spent a couple years studying this subject and I present that study in these articles here. PhilVaz 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


<undent> Let's be clear: evolution is what's taught in science classes. When teaching religion Roman Catholic classes will refer to theology, and if the question of the relationship between creation and evolution comes up, the point would be made that "evolution [is] a matter that is free with respect to the sources", and other appropriate teachings on the relationship between theology and science could also be discussed. That, in a nutshell, is theistic evolution. So, let's make that clearer in the article. .. dave souza, talk 10:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I am watching philosophers debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. My understanding, poor as it is, is that the Church is somewhat vague on purpose on some of these points. They accept the science of evolution fully, and its physical impications, but want to reserve anything about the origin of man's soul to be as they state.--Filll 12:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There are 9 billion, 533 million angels that can dance on the head of a pin. An angel has a diameter of approximately 10 to the -15 meters, or so says Ludwig Ott. Just kidding. PhilVaz 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.[[18]]. (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 [19]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Caption

It would be nice if this figure caption [20] 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)