@MattGutting Where do you see the misunderstanding?

Let's see, hangon, I have to get the answer up.

OK, so what I said was:

"Catholics reconcile the two beliefs by being allowed to believe in evolution, but required to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve."

You had an issue with this and I'm not quite sure I understand why.

It seems you think my statement implies that the Church has made a statement on evolution; that wasn't my intent.

What's your interpretation?

@MattGutting 1. Who is allowing the Catholics to believe in evolution? 2. "believe in evolution" problematic.

Okay, here's what I'm thinking.

With respect to (1):

If the Catholic Church has neither made a statement requiring Catholics to hold a belief, nor forbidding them to hold a belief, then that belief is implicitly allowed. For example:

The Church hasn't made any statements one way or the other about whether Hawaii is the best state in the Union; therefore you're allowed (as far as the Church is concerned) to believe it, and I'm allowed to disbelieve it. Does this make sense?

@MattGutting OK! In agreement.

@MattGutting I guess the problem I am having is what believing means in the Church vs. daily usage.

Could you explain that please? I think that's where I'm having problems following you.

Faith in the Church: We believe in the truths which God has revealed because he can neither deceive nopr be deceived. My 'believing' HI to be the best state in the Union is actually an opinion dependent on several factors.

nopr meant nor ...

Understood. My approach though was with the understanding that most people reading were not Catholics, and would use the "everyday" understanding of "allowed" and "believe".

I'd be quite willing to add some clarification, which leads to your point (2).

i.e. What does it mean to "believe in evolution"?

So here's what I mean by "believe in evolution": "To 'believe in evolution' is to hold the currently accepted scientific hypothesis that the physical bodies of various species have changed over time and created the physical bodies of other species."

@MattGutting The site is asking what the Church teaches, etc. I would think there might be danger to try to frame things too much in the way people are thinking.

I see what you're saying; but you have to approach people first in terms of what they are able to understand, or you'll never be able to teach them. (That's why I say I agree with you, on reflection, that the answer could use some clarification. I need to make sure people are aware of specifically what the Church has said and what that means.)

@MattGutting Having explained that believe as regards the faith is not equal to believe in normal usage, it is also a term one cannot use with science and actually for the same reason as faith in religion. The reason is that truth is science is never final. Also currently accepted better perhaps currently proposed.

@MattGutting Ok and thank you!

@FMS I'd say currently accepted, at least to the extent that scientific hypotheses are accepted. Would you say that "gravity" is a "currently proposed" hypothesis?

It'll take me some time to get the answer revised; I may have time tomorrow and I'll have to ponder what-all I need to say in light of this our conversation.

@MattGutting Gravity is not a hypothesis or theory.

@FMS Untrue; it is in fact part of a scientific theory.

Or rather, part of a scientific theory - the general theory of relativity.

On gravity, the natural phenomenon is accepted, i.e. what is observed (i.e. heavy things fall et al).. The proposed explanations are the hypotheses, equations of motions, relativity etc.

@FMS In the same way, scientists also believe they've detected evidence of evolution; they see it as a phenomenon requiring explanation in the same way that gravity is a phenomenon requiring explanation.

In my posts and comments I have defined science as science defines itself. When you get the chance please review. The good science observes, tries to explain the observation, repeats to verify the explanation, and discards or refines.

Understood and agreed.

I think I see what you're getting at though. Let me think this through a bit before I say things that I don't really mean (because of course I Must Be Right :-) )

In one of my posts I wrote there was an observation that Darwin could not account for what he proposed. It just seems to me that he put the cart before the horse and ever since others have been trying to force it.

@FMS I'll have to check that out. Which posts are we talking about? Just the posts on that question and on the one Meta question?

@MattGutting Standby.

This answer actually on the same question we are talking about.

Your point (1) on Peter Turner's answer.

Trust me, I respect true science as science. It is from God and truth never contradicts truth as our Church teaches. It is the corruption of the Truth that is a problem.

@MattGutting Yes.

Science is what is enabling us to communicate almost instantaneously from the luxury of our locations.

OK. I'd have to see what I'd respond to that. I'm not sure that the hypotheses you're speaking of are as unsupported as you and he believe. (But I'm not sure that they aren't, either.)

You are indubitably correct to say that not all scientific findings are phrased as theories; but then the fact that this one is gives me even more pause.

Let me go ponder. There's a good bit to chew on. I think I will revise my answer; I must say I can't guarantee that you will be entirely happy with the revisions, but I will consider and include the points you bring up. Especially about Church faith vs. ordinary belief.

The thing that gives me cause for pause is why it seems desperate to want the Church approval. There is something unwholesome if not quite sinister about it. True science should stand as science.

There I'm not certain I agree with you. Most scientists that I'm aware of aren't "desperate to want the Church approval", any more than they simply want the Church to recognize good science as good science.

@MattGutting Just making that distinction for the reader would be very helpful. We may want to write to CDF for a statement.

@FMS I never think of that as something that "the ordinary faithful" may do. It's a bit like going to the principal's office :-D

@MattGutting If you read my Meta discussion and Pope Pius Encyclical, because of revelation, one can see that the conclusions of this science are wrong for example the Adam and Eve as in your answer. How does science account for that and we know that is true as God has revealed it.

Science may or may not catch up to revelation (like the universe had a beginning) but it is not Faith or revelation to bend to science and try to reconcile itself to it.

@MattGutting True.

@FMS Science doesn't say anything about Adam and Eve that I'm aware of.

@MattGutting Precisely my point.

@FMS Why is that a problem, though?

What is the current proposed conjecture/hypothesis how [modern] human beings came to be, the ones who the Church says descend from Adam and Eve?

They appear to have descended from earlier related species. There was one woman (called "mitochondrial Eve") who is the earliest traceable woman who is the ancestor of all subsequent human beings; there's also a "Y-chromosomal Adam", considered to be the male ancestor of all living human beings; it appears to be debatable from a scientific perspective whether they lived at roughly the same time or not, but apparently the current consensus is that they did.

So actually, yes; science does have something to say about two humans who might be considered Adam and Eve. But this doesn't consider their souls; that's not a field of scientific inquiry.

@MattGutting it appears to be debatable from a scientific perspective whether they lived at roughly the same time or not hmmm

@FMS In other words, science can't tell right now whether they did or not. It doesn't follow that they didn't; that's not something we have information on. I don't see a problem with that (as you seem to).

Like I said trying to force it ....

@FMS What exactly does that mean?

Revelation tells that Adam and Eve live together for quite some time. Science findings don't seem to concur. Btw science also says it does not follow that M-Eve was the only human woman at the time, only all descendants now come from her. Remember revelation teaches that that the earth repopulated again after Noah.

@FMS Science says that it can't come to a conclusion one way or another. Thus, it's not disagreeing with religion.

And is the story of Noah certainly intended to be historical? Not all stories of the OT are. Some certainly, or almost certainly, are not.

But this is beyond the scope of our original discussion.

You have just shown the inadequacy of science and why it is a mistake for someone to believe in something by saying things like this is 'accepted" or "established science" btw, that is something true scientists also do not do. They stick with a particular explanation and it takes only 1 experiment to put an explanation in jeopardy or to reaffirm truth in science is never final.

@FMS Agreed. Scientists never regard something as final; but they do regard some theories as so well established by experiment that they would be entirely shocked if they found an experiment falsifying them (that's why, for example, the Michelson-Morley experiment made such a big splash). Evolution falls into that category.

That's why I specified that evolution was a "currently accepted" hypothesis.

Please do not forget reading up on Darwin's on reservation + other controversies surrounding the theory. You might have seen my other posts (some remain unanswered). To me, the Church isn't afraid of science as science at all. It has the same origin as the faith, in the Creator. Her work is to ensure the integrity of the Faith i.e the conclusions of science are compatible with the faith + science is used morally.

@MattGutting OK

Gotta go. Merry Christmas!

@FMS Same to you :-)