Jump to content

Talk:Evolution and the Catholic Church: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.6.1) (Ost316)
No edit summary
Line 32: Line 32:
Where is the evidence that the Catholic Church says "that Adam and Eve were real people". I've always thought the Catholic Church no longer supports Genesis creation. Have a look here: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6035/why-did-the-catholic-church-stop-supporting-genesis-creation
Where is the evidence that the Catholic Church says "that Adam and Eve were real people". I've always thought the Catholic Church no longer supports Genesis creation. Have a look here: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6035/why-did-the-catholic-church-stop-supporting-genesis-creation
::Indeed. This bit has appeared relatively recently, sourced to a website, though the page has a 2004 imprimatur. The long and somewhat tortured passage in the official Catechism should be checked, but "that Adam and Eve were real people" is by no means the same as "Genesis creation". [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
::Indeed. This bit has appeared relatively recently, sourced to a website, though the page has a 2004 imprimatur. The long and somewhat tortured passage in the official Catechism should be checked, but "that Adam and Eve were real people" is by no means the same as "Genesis creation". [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
::The Catholic church teaches theological Creationism, i.e. God did the Creation, but Science is the means by which we understand HOW He did it, not theology. I think from a Catholic perspective, the primary problem with this new 'Intelligent Design' movement is not that there was an intelligent design, but that these proponents insist that science can prove it, which the church takes no position on. I fail to see how a naturalistic process like the Scientific Method could possibly prove a miraculous event, as by definition it would remove it from being 'miraculous' in the strictest definition. With the Big Bang science has proven the universe came into existence in a moment, but by using naturalistic methods and theories is it still a miracle?


== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==

Revision as of 15:13, 13 February 2018

WikiProject iconCatholicism B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconEvolution and the Catholic Church is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Catholicism task list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Minor edit

I have edited references of the catholic church "refining" its attitude to the literalism or otherwise of their religious texts and interpretation thereof to "revised". I believe that this term is more neutral and accurate, given there is no empirical evidence to support the idea that a literalistic or allegorical interpretation is superior to the other. "refinement" carries with it the notion of improvement, where as "revised" can imply such but doesn't by necessity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.229.73 (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the best word would be, "evolved." Probably too provocative, though. Scmdn (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning this refinement (or revision or whatever you want to call it), the combination of these two sentences sounds weird:
"Since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. Early contributions to the development of evolutionary theory were made by Catholic scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel."
The way that the sentences have been placed seems to suggest (to me at least) that the second sentence provides examples of this refinement "Since the publication..." in the first. But of course Lamarck died before that publication and even Mendel seems to have started his work before Darwin published. To me it would make more sense to reverse the sentences to preserve the chronology, rather than create the wrong impression... 203.19.71.69 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have reordered and slightly modified the sentence. —PaleoNeonate – 07:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Eve

Quote from the article: All Catholics must accept that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation, that Adam and Eve were real people (the Church also rejects "Polygenism," the idea that along with Adam and Eve there existed other humans from which modern humans are descended[3]), End quote

Where is the evidence that the Catholic Church says "that Adam and Eve were real people". I've always thought the Catholic Church no longer supports Genesis creation. Have a look here: http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6035/why-did-the-catholic-church-stop-supporting-genesis-creation

Indeed. This bit has appeared relatively recently, sourced to a website, though the page has a 2004 imprimatur. The long and somewhat tortured passage in the official Catechism should be checked, but "that Adam and Eve were real people" is by no means the same as "Genesis creation". Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic church teaches theological Creationism, i.e. God did the Creation, but Science is the means by which we understand HOW He did it, not theology. I think from a Catholic perspective, the primary problem with this new 'Intelligent Design' movement is not that there was an intelligent design, but that these proponents insist that science can prove it, which the church takes no position on. I fail to see how a naturalistic process like the Scientific Method could possibly prove a miraculous event, as by definition it would remove it from being 'miraculous' in the strictest definition. With the Big Bang science has proven the universe came into existence in a moment, but by using naturalistic methods and theories is it still a miracle?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

Official Position of the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

"allowed belief in evolution": evolution it not a belief (i.e. see evidence of common descent, evolution as fact and theory, scientific theory, vs hypothesis and religious belief). On the other hand, theistic evolution is. The article has "or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God" (which is theistic evolution). Technically, evolution denial is no longer enforced like it used to be. Even more generally, largely Catholic countries are often rather secular today. The church, instead of completely dying there, had to evolve and become more tolerant. The people still like to affirm a certain traditional affiliation but Catholic priests are no longer running their community.
This is very similar to with the Birth Control topics (where we previously met). If I undersand, you want to make clear that general Catholic practice may conflict with official Catholic doctrine and that conflicts also exist between the statements of various Catholic authorities? This may often be right. This of course also differs from the ability of the Church to enforce those today on their members. A number of Catholics no longer even accept the pope's authority and will dislike or love the pope depending on his popularity and actions. Other Catholics integrate previous traditional beliefs, or new age ones, into their religious lives (syncretism).
All that makes it a complex topic. But since this is all rather obvious, I think that it may be possible to find sources for all of the above. But we must also take care that the final synthesis isn't mine (this post) or yours, but that of a reliable secondary source.
If you believe that most of my post was uncalled for, I apologise, but I thought that it was warranted considering our previous interactions. It is important to understand that Wikipedia is not a preaching platform (WP:SOAPBOXING). We must report on what reliable sources say, ideally secondary ones (yes, a "non-Catholic source"). If I misconstrued your objectives, I will be glad to learn otherwise. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 07:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: To avoid any confusion, for talk archives, my above quote: "allowed belief in evolution" was from one of the above posts from Ilikerabbits!, but the post has since been modified by its author to redact it ([1][2]). —PaleoNeonate - 18:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything someone believes is a "belief" by definition. Since the vast majority of people today who believe in evolution could not give a coherent explanation of the scientific evidence, it is for them just as much a belief derived from taking the word of authorities they trust as a belief in the Trinity or Immaculate Conception. And the same is pretty much true for non-believers in all these things. For the actual official position of the CC, church sources are best. The problem here is really that: a) there really is no single clear "official position", rather a certain range of positions are encouraged, without others being very strongly discouraged, and b) the church generally prefers to avoid making clear statements in simple language as to what those positions are. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paleonate I get what you're saying about the Church position often being in conflict with how many Catholics act, but as Johnbod said church sources are best on these things plus secular sources can often misunderstand the Church, this has happened a lot with Pope Francis for example.Ilikerabbits! (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Evolution and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Evolution and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church&oldid=825462068"