| | :Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the [[Passion of Christ]] makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the [[Great Flood]] occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT) | | :Please do edit the content entry, but the Catholic Church has expressly forbidden Catholics from teaching anything contrary to one Adam and one Eve, which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church. Indeed, the [[Passion of Christ]] makes no sense without Adam's Original Sin, and Jesus himself confirmed that the [[Great Flood]] occurred.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:46, 15 June 2013 (EDT) |
| | :::"... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in ''Humani Generis'' and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in ''Humani Generis'' addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism. | | :::"... contrary to one Adam and One even ..." That idea is not in ''Humani Generis'' and is not the Church's teaching. We are shown what we already knew: we are special creations with miraculous souls created by God. The mention of Adam in ''Humani Generis'' addresses the anathema of polygenism, which is really just a denial of God. It's not Catholic creationism. |
| − | :::"... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but this talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT) | + | :::"... which means that the theory of modern evolution is bunkum according to the Church." You are sticking to something you made up. It is even more wrong this time around. You and I have already had this discussion, but your talk page was deleted and recreated, so it has disappeared. Since Humani Generis and John Paul II's teaching, the Church has been openly hostile to intelligent design creationism. Moreover, there has never been anything like a modern Pope, College of Cardinals, Canon Law, section of the Catechism, or any other modern source embracing young earth creationism. In reality, the Pontifical College openly embraces theistic evolution and visiting academics are invited to counsel the Pope and College on matters of science as the First Vatican Counsel exhorts. Pope Benedict wrote often enough of accepting Christian theistic evolution that we know what his position was for sure. Pope Francis has a degree in some scientific field, so it is extremely unlikely that he will embrace this anti-scientific young earth creationism. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT) |
| | + | Mr. Schlafly, would you please look at the history of your talk page and see if you can find our discussion? I would like to see the citations I made back then so I don't have to do the same research again to expand the simplistic statements about the Church's position on science in this article. I would be grateful. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:44, 15 June 2013 (EDT) |